even accounting for suspicious convergence (which you were right to flag), it just seems really plausible that improving animal welfare now could turn out to be important from a longtermist perspective
Is this just something you already believed, or are you indicating that this post updated you a bit more towards believing this?
I initially assumed you meant the latter, which I found slightly surprising, though on reflection it seems reasonable.
Why I found it surprising: When I wrote the original version of this post in 2020, I was actually coming at it mainly from an angle of āHereās an assumption which seems necessary for the standard longtermist case for working on farmed animals, but which is usually not highlighted or argued for explicitly, and which seems like it could easily be wrong.ā So I guess I wouldāve assumed itād mostly cause people to update slightly away from believing that longtermist case for working on farmed animals. (But only slightly; this post mainly raises questions rather than strong critiques.)
But I guess it really depends on the reader: While some people are familiar with and at least somewhat bought into that longtermist case for working on farmed animals but have probably paid insufficient attention to the fact that Premise 4 might be wrong, some other people havenāt really encountered a clear description of that longtermist case, and some people mostly discuss longtermism as if it is necessarily about humans. So for some people, I think itād make sense for this post to update them towards that longtermist case for working on farmed animals.
I already believed it and had actually been recently talking to someone about it, so I was surpsied and pleased to come across the post, but couldnāt find a phrasing which said this which didnāt just sound like I was saying āoh yeah thanks for writing up my ideaā. Sorry for the confusion!
Is this just something you already believed, or are you indicating that this post updated you a bit more towards believing this?
I initially assumed you meant the latter, which I found slightly surprising, though on reflection it seems reasonable.
Why I found it surprising: When I wrote the original version of this post in 2020, I was actually coming at it mainly from an angle of āHereās an assumption which seems necessary for the standard longtermist case for working on farmed animals, but which is usually not highlighted or argued for explicitly, and which seems like it could easily be wrong.ā So I guess I wouldāve assumed itād mostly cause people to update slightly away from believing that longtermist case for working on farmed animals. (But only slightly; this post mainly raises questions rather than strong critiques.)
But I guess it really depends on the reader: While some people are familiar with and at least somewhat bought into that longtermist case for working on farmed animals but have probably paid insufficient attention to the fact that Premise 4 might be wrong, some other people havenāt really encountered a clear description of that longtermist case, and some people mostly discuss longtermism as if it is necessarily about humans. So for some people, I think itād make sense for this post to update them towards that longtermist case for working on farmed animals.
I already believed it and had actually been recently talking to someone about it, so I was surpsied and pleased to come across the post, but couldnāt find a phrasing which said this which didnāt just sound like I was saying āoh yeah thanks for writing up my ideaā. Sorry for the confusion!