I assume the most important reason is that it is something that most people close to them do. Likewise, I think most people prioritise animals with a higher probability of sentience like chickens instead of shrimps because it is what most people close to them do.
Interesting. I think there’s something to this analogy, though ofc the social pressure to put your seatbelt on is far higher than that to prioritize chickens over shrimp.
I guess [their motivation] has little to do with the actual probability of sentience of the animals in question.
Yeah, maybe they just rationalize their motivations with moral weight arguments while their real drive is something else (see Simler & Hanson 2018). And highlighting potential biases we have might be helpful. On the other hand, you may wanna mainly stick to red-teaming the importance of p(sentience) as a potential crux (by, e.g., red-teaming Clatterbuck and Fischer), anyway, if that’s the reason people give (even if it might not be their real motivation deep down). I generally find this to be the most productive. People rarely update just based on noticing or being reminded of a bias they may have.
I guess most people see voting as fulfilling their duty to improve society.
That also seems part of the picture, yeah! And notice that this bolsters my broader point that it might not be about EV max and that there might be no inconsistency between voting and being difference-making risk-averse.
Interesting. I think there’s something to this analogy, though ofc the social pressure to put your seatbelt on is far higher than that to prioritize chickens over shrimp.
I think social pressure mostly comes from people who are close to us. So I believe there can be significant social pressure to prioritise some animal welfare interventions even if society at large cares little about them. For example, people who have worked on helping dogs and cats for 10 years will make friends and professional connection working on the same area, and this in turns makes it harder to change to other areas.
People rarely update just based on noticing or being reminded of a bias they may have.
People funding or working on animal welfare interventions are often in a tiny minority who were persuaded to eat mostly plant-based to be consistent with their views about non-farmed animals, particularly pets. So those people may be significantly more likely than random people to prioritise animals with a lower probability of sentience if they notice they are happy to support other activities like voting which have a super low chance of positively influencing outcomes.
Interesting. I think there’s something to this analogy, though ofc the social pressure to put your seatbelt on is far higher than that to prioritize chickens over shrimp.
Yeah, maybe they just rationalize their motivations with moral weight arguments while their real drive is something else (see Simler & Hanson 2018). And highlighting potential biases we have might be helpful. On the other hand, you may wanna mainly stick to red-teaming the importance of p(sentience) as a potential crux (by, e.g., red-teaming Clatterbuck and Fischer), anyway, if that’s the reason people give (even if it might not be their real motivation deep down). I generally find this to be the most productive. People rarely update just based on noticing or being reminded of a bias they may have.
That also seems part of the picture, yeah! And notice that this bolsters my broader point that it might not be about EV max and that there might be no inconsistency between voting and being difference-making risk-averse.
I think social pressure mostly comes from people who are close to us. So I believe there can be significant social pressure to prioritise some animal welfare interventions even if society at large cares little about them. For example, people who have worked on helping dogs and cats for 10 years will make friends and professional connection working on the same area, and this in turns makes it harder to change to other areas.
People funding or working on animal welfare interventions are often in a tiny minority who were persuaded to eat mostly plant-based to be consistent with their views about non-farmed animals, particularly pets. So those people may be significantly more likely than random people to prioritise animals with a lower probability of sentience if they notice they are happy to support other activities like voting which have a super low chance of positively influencing outcomes.