The problem is that some EAs would have the amount of life in the universe reduced to zero permanently. (And don’t downvote this unless you personally know this to be false—it is unfortunately true)
If not, then it it is a necessary example, plain and simple.
But it is not necessary—as you can see elsewhere in this thread, I raised an issue without providing an example at all.
“An issue”? Austen was referring to problems where an organization affiliates with particular organizations that cause terror risk, which you don’t seem to have discussed anywhere. For this particular issue, FRI is an illustrative and irreplaceable example, although perhaps you could suggest an alternative way of raising this concern?
The problem is that some EAs would have the amount of life in the universe reduced to zero permanently. (And don’t downvote this unless you personally know this to be false—it is unfortunately true)
It’s a spurious standard. You seem to be drawing a line between mass termination of life and permanent mass termination of life just to make sure that FRI falls on the wrong side of a line. It seems like either could support ‘terrorism’. Animal liberationists actually do have a track record of engaging in various acts of violence and disruption in the past. The fact that their interests aren’t as comprehensive as some NUs’ are doesn’t change this.
“An issue”? Austen was referring to problems where an organization affiliates with particular organizations that cause terror risk, which you don’t seem to have discussed anywhere.
I’m not sure why the fact that my comment didn’t discuss terrorism implies that it fails to be a good example of raising a point without an example.
For this particular issue, FRI is an illustrative and irreplaceable example, although perhaps you could suggest an alternative way of raising this concern?
“”Not causing harm” should be one of the EA values?” Though it probably falls perfectly well under commitment to others anyway.
The problem is that some EAs would have the amount of life in the universe reduced to zero permanently. (And don’t downvote this unless you personally know this to be false—it is unfortunately true)
“An issue”? Austen was referring to problems where an organization affiliates with particular organizations that cause terror risk, which you don’t seem to have discussed anywhere. For this particular issue, FRI is an illustrative and irreplaceable example, although perhaps you could suggest an alternative way of raising this concern?
It’s a spurious standard. You seem to be drawing a line between mass termination of life and permanent mass termination of life just to make sure that FRI falls on the wrong side of a line. It seems like either could support ‘terrorism’. Animal liberationists actually do have a track record of engaging in various acts of violence and disruption in the past. The fact that their interests aren’t as comprehensive as some NUs’ are doesn’t change this.
I’m not sure why the fact that my comment didn’t discuss terrorism implies that it fails to be a good example of raising a point without an example.
“”Not causing harm” should be one of the EA values?” Though it probably falls perfectly well under commitment to others anyway.