Yes, this should be the same. The question is whether the individual can feel pain but perceive it, by their rationality, equivalently to a e. g. a diagnostic tool signal. It seems to me that this is possible for educated humans: maybe there is a splinter which needs to be surgically removed—the human, in this example, understands the solution and does not subjectively suffer from the pain.
Assume that an animal feels pain in its arm due to a splinter. The pain functions as a signal to deprioritize other tasks and focus on trying to resolve the pain or decrease activity in the arm to allow healing. The animal, in this scenario, should be reminded of this by pain otherwise it will not perform the tasks or rest. In this example, the animal does not have the rational capacity to follow recommendations without feeling pain.
I am uncertain whether being compelled to action or rest by pain can be perceived by an animal without extensive rational capacity as subjectively non-negative. I can imagine that if the subjective perception of problem solving is valuable, such as showing how to rest an arm with a splinter to children, then it can be perceived well. Negative subjective perception can be associated with disvalue, such as being unable to play.
I would argue that universal suffering reduction in one’s immediate vicinity is more important than such across geographies (or times), if that can only include specific individuals. For example, if it is cost-effective (only considering individual health impact) to spray a vaccine that makes 10% of individuals healthy while 90% suffer a disease, then this could have negative wellbeing impact (while providing a 99% vaccination rate at one place and 0% at (larger) another can have a positive impact).
Ok, so the suffering of r-strategists seems to be assumed without e. g. hormonal analysis (such as cortisol levels testing). Adult k- and r- strategists’ suffering is also assumed. I am wondering about the definition of suffering: for example, it makes intuitive sense that if one is sometimes cold, hungry, and hunted, their wellbeing is low. But, animals who are warm, live in abundance, and prepare for hunting by play can be happy?
Just glancing at the article, I am uncertain if the person actually perceives the emotions or just exhibits them since that can attract attention/present a specific persona. Of course, the article is written for an online medium that can aim for engagement, but it seems to me, with an exaggeration, almost like a list of behaviors one should be jealous about in order to pay further attention, be angry while perceiving one’s disadvantage and no solution, so pay for a subscription to read further stories to possibly find a solution or read something that would confirm their privilege. But this is somewhat rambling.
Also, these are my first thoughts. There may be answers or better questions somewhere.
Yes, this should be the same. The question is whether the individual can feel pain but perceive it, by their rationality, equivalently to a e. g. a diagnostic tool signal. It seems to me that this is possible for educated humans: maybe there is a splinter which needs to be surgically removed—the human, in this example, understands the solution and does not subjectively suffer from the pain.
Assume that an animal feels pain in its arm due to a splinter. The pain functions as a signal to deprioritize other tasks and focus on trying to resolve the pain or decrease activity in the arm to allow healing. The animal, in this scenario, should be reminded of this by pain otherwise it will not perform the tasks or rest. In this example, the animal does not have the rational capacity to follow recommendations without feeling pain.
I am uncertain whether being compelled to action or rest by pain can be perceived by an animal without extensive rational capacity as subjectively non-negative. I can imagine that if the subjective perception of problem solving is valuable, such as showing how to rest an arm with a splinter to children, then it can be perceived well. Negative subjective perception can be associated with disvalue, such as being unable to play.
I would argue that universal suffering reduction in one’s immediate vicinity is more important than such across geographies (or times), if that can only include specific individuals. For example, if it is cost-effective (only considering individual health impact) to spray a vaccine that makes 10% of individuals healthy while 90% suffer a disease, then this could have negative wellbeing impact (while providing a 99% vaccination rate at one place and 0% at (larger) another can have a positive impact).
Ok, so the suffering of r-strategists seems to be assumed without e. g. hormonal analysis (such as cortisol levels testing). Adult k- and r- strategists’ suffering is also assumed. I am wondering about the definition of suffering: for example, it makes intuitive sense that if one is sometimes cold, hungry, and hunted, their wellbeing is low. But, animals who are warm, live in abundance, and prepare for hunting by play can be happy?
Just glancing at the article, I am uncertain if the person actually perceives the emotions or just exhibits them since that can attract attention/present a specific persona. Of course, the article is written for an online medium that can aim for engagement, but it seems to me, with an exaggeration, almost like a list of behaviors one should be jealous about in order to pay further attention, be angry while perceiving one’s disadvantage and no solution, so pay for a subscription to read further stories to possibly find a solution or read something that would confirm their privilege. But this is somewhat rambling.
Also, these are my first thoughts. There may be answers or better questions somewhere.