The Animal Argument

[Orgazmo]

[Yesterday 09:12 AM] Dent: Cool! you can pretend you're in 21st century auschwitz with one of those. iAnimal - Animal Equality

[Yesterday 01:19 PM] Orgazmo: Are animal rights your cause currently, Dent?

[Yesterday 01:38 PM] Mr. Blonde: You don't even know

[Yesterday 01:38 PM] Mr. Blonde: Lol.

[Yesterday 01:38 PM] Mr. Blonde: one of the nobler gentlemen I know, Dent is

[Yesterday 01:38 PM] Mr. Blonde: but he may be a few centuries before his time

[Yesterday 01:39 PM] Mr. Blonde: that said he still has my unwavering support

[Yesterday 03:44 PM] Dent: I don't like rights/deontological stuff and relieving the max amount of suffering is my main focus - human, non-human and possibly digital or something else.

[Yesterday 03:44 PM] Dent: Tackling speciesism - treating other beings differently solely based on species membership is what i've been doing of late, but I've been poached(lol) by people who are very worried about an intelligence explosion spreading suffering throughout the universe, intentionally or not.

[Yesterday 03:55 PM] Dent: Not long moved to Kensington and I’m living on land Newton owned in 1716, there’s a Lambo 5 feet from the door right now, it’s not mine

[Yesterday 04:09 PM] Dent: Prolly Fc's

[Yesterday 04:40 PM] Mr. Blonde: Try to turn FC onto EA imho. Would be interesting

[Yesterday 04:40 PM] Mr. Blonde: back to VR: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-t...irtual-reality

[Yesterday 04:58 PM] Orgazmo: Oh nice. Dent, so do you treat all living things equally then? Curious how that works. My brother's girlfriend has a very similar outlook in life that I find to be pretty interesting. She takes it to an extreme I didn't realize anyone did. Curious if you're the same.

[Yesterday 05:12 PM] Dent: Not equally no, if there is an irreconcilable difference between two living things, anopheles mosquito vs human for example I value higher sentience/capacity to suffer more. Down with the Mosquito.

[Yesterday 05:20 PM] Dent: Maybe not a tactful thing to say, but pigs are as sentient and for what it's worth as sapient as prelinguistic toddlers, we don't treat toddlers who are born disabled or are unlikely to live past the age of three in the same way .

[Yesterday 05:21 PM] Dent: Both are worthy of care. Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?”

[Yesterday 05:31 PM] Dent: Depending on whether you think humans will spread paradise or malaise throughout the galaxy you might want to give them some extra value to survive, I don’t know how likely it is that Roo's will evolve enough to get started on the project.

[Yesterday 11:20 PM] Mr. Blonde: The amount of time and consideration most humans give to the suffering of animals is fucking horrible

[Yesterday 11:47 PM] Orgazmo: Ya, pretty much 0 for me. I guess my justification is how shitty other animals are to one another (/r/natureismetal, anyone?)...but that's probably not great logic.

[Today 03:07 AM] Dent: Fetch the belt boy, don't you know dinosaurs used to exist? and mosquitoes still do!

[Today 03:08 AM] Dent: "We have enslaved the rest of animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form."

[Today 03:08 AM] Dent: "The animals you eat are not those who devour others; you do not eat the carnivorous beasts, you take them as your pattern. You only hunger for the sweet and gentle creatures which harm no one, which follow you, serve you, and are devoured by you as the reward of their service."

[Today 03:15 AM] Dent: Most of us already show compassion to some non-human animals, we just need to extend our circle of compassion. their actions are driven by selfish genes, it's no fault of their consciousness. It's also no fault of people that have been misled by the meat industry.

[Today 03:19 AM] Dent: Anyway you might be intellectually tickled by the "meat eating problem" - maybe the amount of suffering on pastures is less than what would have gone on in the forest that was there before it. The world may well contain less suffering now than it did a century ago, insect numbers are down. Still no excuse, we can do better.

[Today 11:46 AM] Repugnant Abomination: By saying it's just their selfish genes you're removing all responsibility. With that kind of deterministic view of human action you're undercutting your own argument, because nothing you say will, or even can, change their actions.

[Today 12:06 PM] Mr. Blonde: He's referring to the animals RE: selfish genes, not humans

[Today 01:36 PM] Dent: By 'their actions are driven by the selfish gene' I mean the reason why animals aren't super nice to one another is that in the ancestral landscape that type of behaviour was maladaptive.

[Today 01:36 PM] Dent: You must think pretty low of me if you think I accept genetic determinism.

[Orgazmo]

What about the argument that cows / pigs / etc are prolific because they're domesticated. And they're domesticated because they're easy to slaughter + they taste good.

The one thing I remember verbatim from my Evolutionary Anthropology course is the definition of "fitness:" An individual's genetic representation in future generations. And fitness drives evolution.

In short: Cows and Pigs, as species, are winning by being delicious and domesticated.

Any merit in that?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

What about the argument that cows / pigs / etc are prolific because they're domesticated. And they're domesticated because they're easy to slaughter + they taste good.

I think to understand the argument, one has to spend a lot of time thinking about what the "experience" of being that animal must be like from birth to death, raised in a factory farm (and even in Nature, where animals are constantly dying and suffering from starvation, thirst, parasites, infection...I defer to Dent on that subject).

The idea is that it's a form of slavery to other beings. I feel like in the West it is rare to have this kind of perspective, although it is growing. Many don't see these animals as other beings, capable of feeling emotion (which anyone who has spent time around a dog or pet pig can clearly see they do) and suffering. We see it as a sort of mobile food. But if we are honest there is no real difference between Fido and a nice beef steak.

Eating meat obviously contributed greatly to humanity's survival migrating around the planet out of the jungles and plains of Africa. This is why it is so normal for us to eat meat; unless one is born into a culture (like parts of India) where meat-eating is simply not done. However even in 2016, it's not like everyone has access to affordable, vegetarian food. So many people currently must continue to eat meat or starve (this is a luxury in our various countries we don't often think about.)



The reason vegans and animal rights activists have primarily surfaced in the last 75 years is that only in the last 75 years has the common working-class man had enough leisure time and reasonable level of comfort (in the First World anyways) to sit back and contemplate the fact that: while we evolved throughout history, we are now at a point in time where we can consciously decide and think about what we are eating and change it.

The basic sell for me is suffering. If I am realistic about the amount of suffering animal husbandry causes worldwide, both to the animals, their offspring, and to human health by over-consumption of meat (we really don't need that much), it's staggering. It's a staggering amount of suffering that; while I may not feel it directly as a chicken in a cage does, if I am intellectually and emotionally honest with myself, my actions (eating meat) are directly linked an in a way cause that suffering to take place.

The one thing I remember verbatim from my Evolutionary Anthropology course is the definition of "fitness:" An individual's genetic representation in future generations. And fitness drives evolution.

In short: Cows and Pigs, as species, are winning by being delicious and domesticated.

Any merit in that?

This has some merit from a strictly evolutionary basis...if you think that the cows and pigs are somehow benefiting from evolutionary fitness success by being bred, fed unnatural diets in cramped conditions surrounded by their own filth, only to be slaughtered wholesale for human consumption is somehow "winning" the game of evolution, I don't think there's much merit to that argument. However yeah they are definitely winning the taste olympics!



Also just for the record I can't wait to see what DH has to say on this matter.

[Dent]

On a shitty phone and I'll go into it in more detail., first joint in a month.
Less non human animal ethics but a fair amount of AI/AGI people worry about creating hell on earth,
Perpetual torture of sentient beings for the sake of saving an insentient abstract thing we would call an ecosystem sounds like a thing people wouldn't want.

Maybe you think it's Impossible to do things differently to how life has operated since the cambrian period. The nature of selection pressure will change and with it so will the nature of fitness.

[Dent]

Hi it's me again.
Species is a taxonomic abstraction, this abstract thing has no wants or wishes or values, you can't harm or help a species. Only sentient individuals matter.

[Dent]

I have done too much "read this ultra long thing" on Nubblies, sexbear must think it's a disgrace.

This is the response to almost the same question from the group I work with.
Recommended skimming it and clicking on the link titled
Why being an ecosystem isn’t relevant but being sentient is

Why we should give moral consideration to sentient beings rather than ecosystems - Animal Ethics

[Orgazmo]

I understand your argument perfectly well. Fwiw, I wasn't really arguing the fitness point, more looking for your viewpoint.

I think it very neatly boils down to "Great Good" versus the individual, ya? Species propagation but at the cost of individuals hating their lives. I could understand someone trying to argue that's okay. Again, I'm not that someone...but I'd understand if they did.

[Dent]

I'm not sure what the great good of factory farming could be, it seems to be bad by all accounts bad for us (besides taste) bad for environment if you care about most types of environment. Not sure if I've clocked your view exactly here though.
I've never someone who's strongest value is pig population maximising.

[Dent]

Pushing dietary change is tough as fuck. There seem to be better ways of reducing suffering.

[Orgazmo]

Oh, speaking sorta abstractly I guess--that the goal of evolution / natural selection is spreading the seed of a species. By factory farming these animals, we're making them prolific as fuck and spreading the seed far more than they would see via evolution.

Basically, if the goal of an entity's life is to make sure its genes are represented in future generations, farmed animals are doing a hell of a lot better than non-farmed animals (speaking generally).

Again, I'm not necessarily making this argument. But I could understand if someone did.

[Dent]

I don't know, the domesticated animal that we've classed as a species for the longest time is probably something like a dog and we're talking 30-40,000 years at a guess?
Plenty of things haven't changed much genetically in hundreds of millions of years, they got that niche on lockdown.
And remember that some of the genes in us are the same as lifeforms 500+ million years ago, we don't think of ourselves as representing these genes often.
^ Need to work on this and talk about the origins of life reflecting in all living creatures and how almost all genes are shared anyway and are being expressed in most wild life.
Pretty sure i've just talked myself into the answer being "no" - no chicken or farmed animal specific gene is represented more than non-farmed animal genes
"most successful gene" isn't giving me much on google, but i'll try and find what gene has been expressed in the most amount of sentients to date.



With pigs I think it's likely that we're using and abusing them for the time being, and we'll send them packing like last nights prostitute as soon as it's convenient to do so. What we want is cheap healthy tasty food and animals don't fit the bill perfectly, even ignoring the sentience thing.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

Oh, speaking sorta abstractly I guess--that the goal of evolution / natural selection is spreading the seed of a species. By factory farming these animals, we're making them prolific as fuck and spreading the seed far more than they would see via evolution.

This is what I meant by looking at it from a strictly evolutionary biology sense. While it is good to look at this perspective for one's education, what Dent is talking about totally transcends what biology's "goals" are. 99+% of species have gone extinct since life first arrived on this Earth. So I think that from that perspective, the idea that a species "succeeds" for a time by having large numbers for a while sort of is pointless on the massive scale of time and death. There isn't some ticket-counter at the end of Time that names winners of the population contest.

Humans are still dying of diseases that could be said to be evolution's "goals". To look at existence from a purely evolutionary perspective is to sort of miss the whole human factor entirely (as we clearly are able to do more to help ourselves and the sufferings of beings on this planet than Nature is).

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

Basically, if the goal of an entity's life is to make sure its genes are represented in future generations, farmed animals are doing a hell of a lot better than non-farmed animals (speaking generally).

Again, I'm not necessarily making this argument. But I could understand if someone did.

A person who would make this argument would be making a large assuming that that is the goal of an entity's life, though. I don't feel like this argument has much validity at all based on the environmental and ecosystem science we've had the past 50 years. At a certain point humanity has to take reigns from blind evolution to steer ourselves and our morality/ethics/meaning of life has to go beyond mere numbers games.

And anyways, evolution is more about harmonizing populations and filling niches in ecosystems than it is about a numbers-game-competition. It's all the same Life, from Nature's perspective. I think it is a very human-centric idea to think that "the more numbers, the more successful the species is, no matter how enslaved they are for our benefit while not living natural lives at all!"

[Dent]

So I have praised the dead that are already dead more than
the living that are yet alive; but better than both of them is
he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work
that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-4
#real winners

[Dent]

BTW Blonde you pwn3d everyone on this topic like 7 years ago and still p00ning them today #whattaguy

Veganism

[Saint DH]

I eat meat. Humans are meat eaters. We need to eat it to survive. I feel no guilt in surviving. Feeling guilty about it seems like cognitive dissonance resulting from nihilism.

However I'm sure you're perfectly fine with animal experiments and testing. None of the cosmetics I use are tested on animals. Can you say the same? So before you shame people for surviving, maybe you should catch the next train to fuck off me land?

[Dent]

Some humans aren't meat eaters, I know people that are twice your age and have never ate meat.
Experiments on animals account for a tiny fraction of animal suffering, and it's a much tougher topic on now necessary it is, one that i'd like to go into sometime.

[Dent]

Anyway what you eat is a major distraction and we can help animals in other ways.

I've arranged for someone I work with to deliver talks in the UK next week, anyone have thoughts on this?




Most sentient individuals are nonhuman animals living in the wild. The available evidence makes it plausible to believe that during their lives suffering predominates over well-being. Given their numbers and the intensity of the harms these animals endure, on any ethical outlook concerned with reducing suffering, helping them should be assigned high priority. In this presentation, Eze Paez will develop the argument for intervening in nature and defend it from some common objections. Finally, he will elaborate on the implications of integrating concern for wild animals in animal advocacy.

Eze Paez is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Humanistic Studies of the University of Minho (Portugal) and board member of the UPF Centre for Animal Ethics (Barcelona, Spain). Previously, he was a lecturer in legal theory, moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, where he received his PhD in moral philosophy. With Catia Faria he coedited the first academic volume in English on wild animal suffering and intervention in nature. He is a spokesperson for Animal Ethics and has given talks about the moral consideration of nonhuman animals across Europe and Latin America.

[Dent]

This doesn't include farmed fish which is somewhere around 1-2 trillion per year. Lots of which are used to feed land animals.
Here's the section on experimentation btw
http://www.animal-ethics.org/animal-experimentation/

[Mr. Blonde]

How do you plan on changing that many people's minds? Because that is my main concern. Roadkill isn't exactly stopping people from driving.

Overall I agree with the intent, but my gut reaction is that we have so many other problems to take care of as far as physical violence and the many afflictions of the human psyche at a much more foundational level. It's all very nice to talk about the imperative of relieving the suffering of animals in nature, but I feel human beings add the most suffering to the world.

Imagine a world without humans, but still has an ecosystem and animal life. That world will have an ambient level of pain and pleasure that can only be felt and experienced by the beings on them.

Now imagine our world. Much more suffering, much more chaos and harm. Suffering on the emotional, mental, existential scale that comes with human minds only.

Doesn't it make sense to focus on alleviating human suffering first and foremost?

I think this will be one of your major criticisms. It seems to gloss over the obvious insanity of the current global disparity, war, and inequality and just focus on the critters. I just feel like human well-being would have to come first.

[Dent]

The total amount of suffering in the world is (maybe) far less now than it was a hundred years ago.
loss of wildlife populations vs factory farming.

World facing first mass extinction since the dinosaurs as wildlife populations plunge by 67 per cent in 50 years | The Independent
"wildlife populations plunge by 67 per cent in 50 years"
"They found that between 1970 and 2012, the average decline in population was 58 per cent. "

Depression is something that only happens in social animals, and factory farmed animals probably spend almost all their time in a negative state whereas wild animals are probably only negative most of the time.
Still if you do the numbers the devastation that humans are causing are reducing suffering in the wild.
Insect populations are another thing.. I don't think there's much data on insect populations now vs 100 years ago, and as you recognise they probably don't have the same level of mental anguish.
It's possible that even though they don't have the same "in your head" suffering, the "escape from the fire" suffering is much more intense than humans.

Humans can rationalise going to the dentists, having an injection or working out because they can see into the future and anticipate that it's going to be a good thing for their future self, animals that don't have our foresight ability might experience massively more distress.

just some thoughts..
Also there are shitloads of people working on human suffering, animal suffering is neglected and it's not clear that you can't do both or even that helping animals will make us friendlier and want to help humans more too, they're not mutually exclusive.

At a guess I think maybe 99.99999% of suffering on earth doesn't occur in humans.. this number is kinda pulled out of my arse though. If Brian is right it's far more, if insects can feel pain but it doesn't amount to suffering it's a fair bit less. then bacteria sperm and atoms and so on, it's a tough one.

[Dent]

How to help animals in nature and get rid of almost all the suffering on earth without blowing their fucking house down?

https://www.gene-drives.com/
COMPASSIONATE BIOLOGY
How CRISPR-based "gene drives" could cheaply, rapidly and
sustainably reduce suffering throughout the living world.

Edit : Btw I hope you don't think i'm downplaying human suffering, it's massive. I suspect what's required for suffering is more ancient than you might think though, and it's not what makes humans special.

Q - how much of the average humans life is spent above hedonic zero? What about the average American is? And what's your best guess for yourself?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

The total amount of suffering in the world is (maybe) far less now than it was a hundred years ago.
loss of wildlife populations vs factory farming.

World facing first mass extinction since the dinosaurs as wildlife populations plunge by 67 per cent in 50 years | The Independent
"wildlife populations plunge by 67 per cent in 50 years"
"They found that between 1970 and 2012, the average decline in population was 58 per cent. "

Depression is something that only happens in social animals, and factory farmed animals probably spend almost all their time in a negative state whereas wild animals are probably only negative most of the time.
Still if you do the numbers the devastation that humans are causing are reducing suffering in the wild.
Insect populations are another thing.. I don't think there's much data on insect populations now vs 100 years ago, and as you recognise they probably don't have the same level of mental anguish.
It's possible that even though they don't have the same "in your head" suffering, the "escape from the fire" suffering is much more intense than humans.

Humans can rationalise going to the dentists, having an injection or working out because they can see into the future and anticipate that it's going to be a good thing for their future self, animals that don't have our foresight ability might experience massively more distress.

just some thoughts..
Also there are shitloads of people working on human suffering, animal suffering is neglected and it's not clear that you can't do both or even that helping animals will make us friendlier and want to help humans more too, they're not mutually exclusive.

At a guess I think maybe 99.99999% of suffering on earth doesn't occur in humans.. this number is kinda pulled out of my arse though. If Brian is right it's far more, if insects can feel pain but it doesn't amount to suffering it's a fair bit less. then bacteria sperm and atoms and so on, it's a tough one.

A lot of this is speculation and still glossing over the fact of intense and extant human suffering. Even if the claim is true that 100 years ago human suffering was less (which i'm curious about given global population growth), there is still clearly much more human suffering to reduce.

There may be a lot of people working on human suffering, but not enough, clearly. Everyone you know, possibly even yourself, are suffering from many things right now.

This is coming from a practical point of view; as in; dealing with the world as it currently is. You can't just gloss over the obvious fact that human suffering simply perpetuates more suffering. The kids that put cats in a bag and set them on fire don't exactly have the best homelife; almost all human cruelty has it's sources of not being taught with compassionate love and care the value of Life and empathy towards animals.

Until we find a way to continue to reduce this on a massive scale, people simply will not care about wild animal suffering in Nature until their own personal sufferings are gone. Until they can reach a new level of understanding and healing in their personal lives. They don't have time. They have lives to live. Children to feed. Work to do. Oh and my back pain...up now my parents are dead...wow how the time flies...what's that you say about wild animal suffering?

I think that doing all this stuff from a thought experiment for some kind of hyper-futuristic utopia where human beings have an absolute mastery over Nature and can be in complete control of the ambient suffering level by some form of omnipresent technology is interesting... but not going to get very far in our lifetime.

Do you know why perhaps 99.99999% of suffering on Earth doesn't occur in humans? Because it happens away from where humans are. To even begin to think about the practical, real-world application (presumably the endgame for this argument) into the real world, it would take not only world-peace, but pretty much every single human being on the planet would have to achieve Buddha-level consciousness in order to not only be aware of but have empathy for the smallest and most disgusting insects that are eating each other 10 feet underground right now.

How are you planning on feeding all of those insects and animals without causing other beings sufferings?


The time you spend here on Nubblies could be spent out saving banana slugs from getting run over on the hill near where I live.

[Dent]

We will soon have ways to reduce suffering massively, crispr technology is a game changer.
I do help animals sometimes, acting as a multiplier os best for now though.
I don't see how there could be more suffering today unless computers feel.
Human suffering doesn't have to perpetuate suffering, how many people that commit suicide would take the world with them if they could? Human suffering will soon be a massive existential risk.
Look at what's happened to the world recently, it's not slowing down besides some bumps in the road. It's the best of times.
Nubblies is a guilty pleasure, not a complete waste of time though.
Read the gene drives site pls
Onwards and upwards.
Disagree that all cruelty is from malicious people, take Orgazmo and anyone else that funds the death camps as an example, they're mostly just ignorant.
Veganism is on the rise massively worldwide, especially in developed countries.
You're right that intervention in nature is tricky, starting with academia but also kind people that can pull animals trapped in ice lakes and such is a good start.
It's much easier to reduce suffering in non humans than humans, lots of non human suffering is low hanging fruit and a small number of people can make a huge difference.
Mercy killing, rescuing trapped animals, animal hospitals and so on.
Working with a lawyer at the moment to push different methods of killing animals, different pesticides etc are millions of times more effective than putting worms out of their misery. We're working on a rights for primates initiative at the moment. Spoke with two barristers yesterday at a café in Fleet Street.
Last weekend we gathered 1300 signatures from a vegan festival, currently I'm on a coach to another one with the same purpose.
Vegans are ineffective as fuck and steering them makes a huge difference.
Things are really bad but the group I'm in is the best in the world for reducing suffering.
https://sentience-politics.org

[Dent]

Trying to end all human suffering before tackling the rest sounds retarded. Triage!
Also it's not my fault it isn't going to be solved before we die, and that's not a reason to not work on it.
Lets solve England and England's beasts first! People do say this.
I'm cosmopolitan
You for moral progress, let's work towards the end game in the most efficient way.

[Repugnant Abomination]

One way to measure people, or humanity, is how well we treat weaker, more vulnerable life. In this regard, we fall depressingly short.

Industrialization of the farming industry has helped alleviate hunger and malnutrition, bringing meat to people who formerly couldn't afford it. But the awful, and I mean awful conditions we put the animals in is terrible. Out of sight out of mind. That same person who could never hurt or kill an animal will wolf down a slab of pork chops, no problem, as long as they don't see what the animal went through.

I think Blonde is right about focusing on humanity, not first, but the most. The weakest among us -- the poor, the destitute, the refugees, the people who go hungry every day -- most of our resources should go to helping them. But it wouldn't take much to clean up industrial farms. The problem is people want cheap meat, and they want it for every meal. The market found a demand and then figured out a way to supply for it at the most profitable, efficient way possible. They prey on our gluttony.