Regarding all your points and my responses, my views have definitely shifted since this post. I’m more strongly in favor of cage free and feel downright embarrassed that it took me so long to accept the immediate suffering of replacing caged hens with cage-free hens.
Per the preface, I think a reasonable person should accept the welfare improvement of cage free. But I don’t think it’s the same kind of slam dunk as the world being round or obesity being unhealthy. These are purely empirical, while there is a coherent set of first principles that rejects the quantification of cage-free suffering reduction. In hindsight, I was contorting myself to hold those principles in order to soldier for the conclusion I wanted.) Mostly, though, I agree it’s a social problem and I am publishing new writing at https://sandcastlesblog.substack.com aimed at abolitionist-type advocates to try to mitigate it. I think it will be difficult to make progress on.
I agree with this point, and I’ve mostly stopped using the term “ecology” for this reason. This is a helpful reminder to me to continue not using it, especially since I’m starting to write more again!
I mostly agree with this. However, I think it is reasonable and necessary to sometimes set side disagreements that are as deeply dug-in as this. (Maybe this point is more in response to 1, sorry for being sloppy.)
I wish I was a cute cucumber.
Something I think wasn’t even as clear to me when I wrote this is that the intended audience was abolitionist activists who are unfamiliar with the discursive norms of this forum. I come from that world and while I mostly feel horrified at what an epistemic mess I was, I still feel that community has something to offer. My new writing is more self-consciously aimed at that audience and for that reason, I’m not crossposting it here. I’m trying to pick my battles and I feel kind of OK with the balance that this essay ended up striking.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m not familiar enough with the scientific principles to make confident comparisons, but I can imagine that studies quantifying cage-free suffering reduction are less compelling than the examples that I gave.
I think that adjusting your presentation to the audience you want to convince makes sense. And It’s great to hear you’re speaking to the abolitionist activist community—since you have firsthand experience in that world but also seem familiar with EA communities, you probably have a unique perspective to bring back to the abolitionist activists and the knowledge of that community to communicate it in a way that connects with them.
Regarding all your points and my responses, my views have definitely shifted since this post. I’m more strongly in favor of cage free and feel downright embarrassed that it took me so long to accept the immediate suffering of replacing caged hens with cage-free hens.
Per the preface, I think a reasonable person should accept the welfare improvement of cage free. But I don’t think it’s the same kind of slam dunk as the world being round or obesity being unhealthy. These are purely empirical, while there is a coherent set of first principles that rejects the quantification of cage-free suffering reduction. In hindsight, I was contorting myself to hold those principles in order to soldier for the conclusion I wanted.) Mostly, though, I agree it’s a social problem and I am publishing new writing at https://sandcastlesblog.substack.com aimed at abolitionist-type advocates to try to mitigate it. I think it will be difficult to make progress on.
I agree with this point, and I’ve mostly stopped using the term “ecology” for this reason. This is a helpful reminder to me to continue not using it, especially since I’m starting to write more again!
I mostly agree with this. However, I think it is reasonable and necessary to sometimes set side disagreements that are as deeply dug-in as this. (Maybe this point is more in response to 1, sorry for being sloppy.)
I wish I was a cute cucumber.
Something I think wasn’t even as clear to me when I wrote this is that the intended audience was abolitionist activists who are unfamiliar with the discursive norms of this forum. I come from that world and while I mostly feel horrified at what an epistemic mess I was, I still feel that community has something to offer. My new writing is more self-consciously aimed at that audience and for that reason, I’m not crossposting it here. I’m trying to pick my battles and I feel kind of OK with the balance that this essay ended up striking.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m not familiar enough with the scientific principles to make confident comparisons, but I can imagine that studies quantifying cage-free suffering reduction are less compelling than the examples that I gave.
I think that adjusting your presentation to the audience you want to convince makes sense. And It’s great to hear you’re speaking to the abolitionist activist community—since you have firsthand experience in that world but also seem familiar with EA communities, you probably have a unique perspective to bring back to the abolitionist activists and the knowledge of that community to communicate it in a way that connects with them.
I wish I was a sandcastle :)