Strong downvoted again. This is an article about “The lies of big bug” and how the bug industry is misleading people about the good they are doing, and also their financial viability as a business. I don’t think your comment addresses the main points of the article.
If this was a post which focused on questions and tradeoffs between insect welfare and wild animal welfare than I think your comment would be very relevant.
One of the main points of the article is that insect farming is bad for insect welfare, so Vasco’s comment seems on-topic enough for me. Maybe the link to that part of the argument could have been stated more clearly.
Maybe it seems repetitive if you see such comments a lot, but then it suggests that main posts are repeatedly neglecting the argument. Perhaps it would be better for main posts just to point out that this argument exists in their caveats and link to a discussion somewhere. If it might change the whole sign of whether something is good or bad, it seems like it should be at least mentioned.
For people like me who only come to read the occasional post, it does feel useful to be reminded of these other perspectives.
Thanks, Nick. I also upvoted your comment again. The post seems to be strongly suggesting that farming insects is harmful, so I think my comment pointing the main way I believe it could be beneficial is appropriate.
Yes I would go even further to say it assumes insect farming is harmful, but I don’t think that’s a good enough justification for a comment challenging that underlying assumption—as discussing the assumption isn’t the purpose of the post. I would think the same thing about posting an argument for the “meat-eating problem” on a given global health post, which in a similar vein assumes that saving human lives is good.
I think the best place for these discussions is on posts which specifically address that issue, or events like the Animal welfare vs. Global health debate week where these questions are ever bubbling up.
I don’t think commenting in this way on every (or a random-ish selection) of post that assumes insect farming is harmful is a helpful way to operate and promote healthy discussion on the forum, but I think its reasonable to disagree with me here as well. Maybe the OP might even disagree!
I agree it would not make sense to comment this way in every post or a random selection of posts. However, Matthew (the author of the post) is one of the people I know most sympathetic about considering effects on wild animals, and also has the best guess that wild animals have negative lives (like I do), which makes farming insects tendentially beneficial to wild animals.
Strong downvoted again. This is an article about “The lies of big bug” and how the bug industry is misleading people about the good they are doing, and also their financial viability as a business. I don’t think your comment addresses the main points of the article.
If this was a post which focused on questions and tradeoffs between insect welfare and wild animal welfare than I think your comment would be very relevant.
One of the main points of the article is that insect farming is bad for insect welfare, so Vasco’s comment seems on-topic enough for me. Maybe the link to that part of the argument could have been stated more clearly.
Maybe it seems repetitive if you see such comments a lot, but then it suggests that main posts are repeatedly neglecting the argument. Perhaps it would be better for main posts just to point out that this argument exists in their caveats and link to a discussion somewhere. If it might change the whole sign of whether something is good or bad, it seems like it should be at least mentioned.
For people like me who only come to read the occasional post, it does feel useful to be reminded of these other perspectives.
Thanks, Nick. I also upvoted your comment again. The post seems to be strongly suggesting that farming insects is harmful, so I think my comment pointing the main way I believe it could be beneficial is appropriate.
Yes I would go even further to say it assumes insect farming is harmful, but I don’t think that’s a good enough justification for a comment challenging that underlying assumption—as discussing the assumption isn’t the purpose of the post. I would think the same thing about posting an argument for the “meat-eating problem” on a given global health post, which in a similar vein assumes that saving human lives is good.
I think the best place for these discussions is on posts which specifically address that issue, or events like the Animal welfare vs. Global health debate week where these questions are ever bubbling up.
I don’t think commenting in this way on every (or a random-ish selection) of post that assumes insect farming is harmful is a helpful way to operate and promote healthy discussion on the forum, but I think its reasonable to disagree with me here as well. Maybe the OP might even disagree!
I agree it would not make sense to comment this way in every post or a random selection of posts. However, Matthew (the author of the post) is one of the people I know most sympathetic about considering effects on wild animals, and also has the best guess that wild animals have negative lives (like I do), which makes farming insects tendentially beneficial to wild animals.
Fair (didn’t know that context) - if @Bentham’s Bulldog agrees I’ll withdraw the downvote.
For reference, Matthew recommended donating to GiveWell to decrease the number of wild animals.