Hi Ariel! Thank you for the kind words. May I suggest moving this discussion to the overview piece given its cross-cutting content?
And yes perhaps a sequence might have been better, but I’d already started, had some glitches trying to create a sequence, and got the impression (from other examples) that sequences are “heavier”/longer.
Edit: I’ll just answer here while I have the time. I especially appreciate you highlighting the points you thought were good, thank you.
Clearly I disagree with Tomasik with respect to the point about “long-run effects on society’s values”. What you said seems possible, rather than plausible, but that just suggests to me we should be careful about the message/argument (whenever I ask people why they care about “the environment”, it’s pretty easy to get most to see it’s due to instrumental value to sentient beings). And yes, if ones values “robust net-positive effects” above abolition, then yes the implication you draw out seems correct, but I don’t see a good reason to do that valuation in the first place.
I thought I answered these questions in the first post (as yes and abolitionism)? And I don’t understand what the relevant similarities with prohibition are to comment meaningfully.
Not more decisive, but worth keeping in mind given the difficulty with cultured meat.
Hi Ariel! Thank you for the kind words. May I suggest moving this discussion to the overview piece given its cross-cutting content?
And yes perhaps a sequence might have been better, but I’d already started, had some glitches trying to create a sequence, and got the impression (from other examples) that sequences are “heavier”/longer.
Edit: I’ll just answer here while I have the time. I especially appreciate you highlighting the points you thought were good, thank you.
Clearly I disagree with Tomasik with respect to the point about “long-run effects on society’s values”. What you said seems possible, rather than plausible, but that just suggests to me we should be careful about the message/argument (whenever I ask people why they care about “the environment”, it’s pretty easy to get most to see it’s due to instrumental value to sentient beings). And yes, if ones values “robust net-positive effects” above abolition, then yes the implication you draw out seems correct, but I don’t see a good reason to do that valuation in the first place.
I thought I answered these questions in the first post (as yes and abolitionism)? And I don’t understand what the relevant similarities with prohibition are to comment meaningfully.
Not more decisive, but worth keeping in mind given the difficulty with cultured meat.