If ever I need to make the case that animals do suffer on farms (at least some of the time), then I could see this being a useful reference resource.
If your aim is to provide a persuasive resource to people who are not currently vegan, you may find it more effective if your posts don’t lead with language like:
Anyone who is not a moral imbecile recognizes that it’s wrong to contribute to [factory farming]
As someone who agrees that factory farming could well be one of the greatest moral atrocities of all time, thank you for putting this list together.
Thanks for the comment. What I said was “Anyone who is not a moral imbecile recognizes that it’s wrong to contribute to senseless cruelty for the sake of comparatively minor benefits.” The point is that it’s obvious that one shouldn’t cause lots of torture for the sake of minor benefits. If, as I claim, that is what happens when one eats meat, then this is a good case against eating meat.
I think it’s worth increasing the degree to which you put your prospective reader in mind when writing essays like this. As they say, “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”. I think more could have been done to avoid alienating readers who otherwise would have been inclined to listen to you.
Of course, I understand (and 100% agree!) with the way you feel about this moral issue. To you, factory farming is obviously morally wrong. But front and center in your mind could be that most people, and even some EAs/rationalists, have just never thought about meat consumption this way.
You’re in 650 BCE trying to convince Spartans to not kill babies, 1850 trying to convince American Southerners to not own slaves, and 2023 trying to get people to care about AI x-risk. What’s a better approach: Wrecking them with facts + logic, or gently guiding them to consider a perspective they haven’t before?
If ever I need to make the case that animals do suffer on farms (at least some of the time), then I could see this being a useful reference resource.
If your aim is to provide a persuasive resource to people who are not currently vegan, you may find it more effective if your posts don’t lead with language like:
As someone who agrees that factory farming could well be one of the greatest moral atrocities of all time, thank you for putting this list together.
Thanks for the comment. What I said was “Anyone who is not a moral imbecile recognizes that it’s wrong to contribute to senseless cruelty for the sake of comparatively minor benefits.” The point is that it’s obvious that one shouldn’t cause lots of torture for the sake of minor benefits. If, as I claim, that is what happens when one eats meat, then this is a good case against eating meat.
I think it’s worth increasing the degree to which you put your prospective reader in mind when writing essays like this. As they say, “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”. I think more could have been done to avoid alienating readers who otherwise would have been inclined to listen to you.
Of course, I understand (and 100% agree!) with the way you feel about this moral issue. To you, factory farming is obviously morally wrong. But front and center in your mind could be that most people, and even some EAs/rationalists, have just never thought about meat consumption this way.
You’re in 650 BCE trying to convince Spartans to not kill babies, 1850 trying to convince American Southerners to not own slaves, and 2023 trying to get people to care about AI x-risk. What’s a better approach: Wrecking them with facts + logic, or gently guiding them to consider a perspective they haven’t before?