I appreciate how Seth is playing nice because you are new to the EA Forum.
However, I’m strongly downvoting for the following reasons:
“leading cause area” are very strong words to then not follow with any comparison to any other cause areas.
Strong claims such as ‘The case is overstated’ and ‘The calculations double-count a lot of livestock carcasses’ appear to have resulted from those commentators not having read the relevant studies with sufficient care, or from failing to understand the mathematics of the calculations, or their implications. Reasonable people can disagree on how to count byproduct allocation. Calling that a failure to read carefully or understand mathematics misrepresents the disagreement.
These incorrect claims undermine the case for sustainable pet diets. Similar attempts to defend the status quo were made, and are being made, by those seeking to undermine the science demonstrating the adverse effects of smoking, and the consumption of animal products, and of fossil fuels. However, these claims are incorrect, and sometimes profoundly so. This is not an argument, and does not belong here. This is just rethoric.
Your paper is published in MDPI, a known pay-to-publish venue.
I have absolutely no idea if making pets eat plant-based is a good intervention, and how it competes with other possible uses of our resources, and refuse to make any object-level claims about it here.
I do want to say, in Andrew’s defense, that the comments on @Alistair Stewart ’s original post are not exactly the very model of civility that EA might hope to show the world. I can understand why you’d read them and come away with the sense that people don’t really get what you’re trying to do.
However, the point that calling something a ‘leading cause area’ requires cross-cause comparison is well-taken.
This is addressed in my most recent post. Thank you for partly correcting your post. Your criticisms in your point (3) are applicable to your point (4).
Hi Andrew,
I appreciate how Seth is playing nice because you are new to the EA Forum.
However, I’m strongly downvoting for the following reasons:
“leading cause area” are very strong words to then not follow with any comparison to any other cause areas.
Strong claims such as ‘The case is overstated’ and ‘The calculations double-count a lot of livestock carcasses’ appear to have resulted from those commentators not having read the relevant studies with sufficient care, or from failing to understand the mathematics of the calculations, or their implications.Reasonable people can disagree on how to count byproduct allocation. Calling that a failure to read carefully or understand mathematics misrepresents the disagreement.These incorrect claims undermine the case for sustainable pet diets. Similar attempts to defend the status quo were made, and are being made, by those seeking to undermine the science demonstrating the adverse effects of smoking, and the consumption of animal products, and of fossil fuels. However, these claims are incorrect, and sometimes profoundly so. This is not an argument, and does not belong here. This is just rethoric.
Your paper is published in MDPI, a known pay-to-publish venue.
I have absolutely no idea if making pets eat plant-based is a good intervention, and how it competes with other possible uses of our resources, and refuse to make any object-level claims about it here.
Well, you know me, always playing nice 😃😃😃
I do want to say, in Andrew’s defense, that the comments on @Alistair Stewart ’s original post are not exactly the very model of civility that EA might hope to show the world. I can understand why you’d read them and come away with the sense that people don’t really get what you’re trying to do.
However, the point that calling something a ‘leading cause area’ requires cross-cause comparison is well-taken.
Fair point. I no longer fully endorse point 2 so I’ve struck that out.
This is addressed in my most recent post. Thank you for partly correcting your post. Your criticisms in your point (3) are applicable to your point (4).