it would also reduce crop farming and associated rodent/āinsect deaths, which are more sentient than bivalves.
Itās not clear this is good rather than bad. Plausibly the population effects dominate, and they could be bad. Also, even the population effects are complicated and may be very context-specific, e.g. from Fischer and Lameyās Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture:
The authors of the Argentinian study on grass mice implicitly raise a fourth problem. They note that the arrival of agriculture in central Argentina had increased the local populations of some field animals. āSome rodent species benefitted from the changes because of increased food availability and decreased predator abundanceā (Cavia et al. 2005: 95). In other words, some of the animals killed by contemporary agriculture may owe their existence to the same systems that kill them. If they werenāt vulnerable to death via combine, owl, or poison, they wouldnāt have existed in the first place.
This class of wild animal welfare considerations affecting personal choice just seems like a lot (my concern does not apply to all of wild animal welfare, such as large scale policy or programs which seems good to research or explore).
Iām not sure what we can do with this right now.
One of the links advises eating rainforest cleared beef.
Iām down with eating beef because in many farms itās possible beef cows have good lives.
But intentionally destroying rainforests just hurts from a lefty perspective. I can feel this in my bones. I think most EAs have the same aversion.
Is it good to have a system that brings about lots of sentient creatures and then kills some of them (ignoring the fact that this system feeds us)? Opinions may, of course vary, particularly between purist consequentialists and others; In my opinion itās bad. This is one of the reasons I oppose factory farming, even though I believe every life to be ānet positiveā.
See also Brian Tomasikās āHow Does Vegetarianism Impact Wild-Animal Suffering?ā
Again Iāll just note that Tomasikās view stems from strictly consequentialist ethics. Iām not sure I view suffering caused by a creatureās natural habitat in the same light that I view suffering caused by humans.
Itās not clear this is good rather than bad. Plausibly the population effects dominate, and they could be bad. Also, even the population effects are complicated and may be very context-specific, e.g. from Fischer and Lameyās Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture:
See also Brian Tomasikās How Does Vegetarianism Impact Wild-Animal Suffering? and Crop Cultivation and Wild Animals among others, from a suffering-focused/ānegative utilitarian perspective.
The effects on wild aquatic animals are also complicated.
This class of wild animal welfare considerations affecting personal choice just seems like a lot (my concern does not apply to all of wild animal welfare, such as large scale policy or programs which seems good to research or explore).
Iām not sure what we can do with this right now.
One of the links advises eating rainforest cleared beef.
Iām down with eating beef because in many farms itās possible beef cows have good lives.
But intentionally destroying rainforests just hurts from a lefty perspective. I can feel this in my bones. I think most EAs have the same aversion.
Is it good to have a system that brings about lots of sentient creatures and then kills some of them (ignoring the fact that this system feeds us)? Opinions may, of course vary, particularly between purist consequentialists and others; In my opinion itās bad. This is one of the reasons I oppose factory farming, even though I believe every life to be ānet positiveā.
Again Iāll just note that Tomasikās view stems from strictly consequentialist ethics. Iām not sure I view suffering caused by a creatureās natural habitat in the same light that I view suffering caused by humans.