âstop using ⌠insecticidesâ and do what instead?
âget a sense of the suffering of individual insectsâ how?
âstop or slow down the human factory farming of insectsâ but with what consequences?
âchanges in ag policyâ of what sort and with what consequences?
Thereâs no clear suggestion here that would reduce harm to insects without also significantly harming humans or other animals. You then have to balance human/âanimal and insect welfare, which is impractical to estimate (as Singer suggests), and which leads to absurd conclusions (donât stop locust plagues, let termites eat your house, sweep ants from your path,exterminate anteaters).
I agree that reducing suffering is good by itself, but you havenât suggested any ways to reduce insect suffering without some insect-human utility calculus.
Hmm. It seems unreasonable to argue a person advocating for the development and investigation of a new way of improving the world must first personally specify and articulate a viable and practical program. This detail is the very thing they are working to obtain.
The very article you referenced by Peter Singer promote the ideas and attitudes that you are opposing.
This inconsistency and others (your odd remark of âlost in the weedsâ which I suspect will be your response to more detailed, higher effort comment and telegraphs hostility), as well as your tone, suggests itâs not reasonable to communicate with you, at least with the agenda of advocating for welfare in this cause.
As an aside, I strongly urge you to adjust your approach when communicating your beliefs about longtermism, with vastly more numerous and engaged supporters. In particular, you should equip yourself with substantive arguments instead of borderline ad hominem. You would play into the subtext there that many critics are unreasonable, close minded and less intelligent.
Your suggestions are vague.
âstop using ⌠insecticidesâ and do what instead?
âget a sense of the suffering of individual insectsâ how?
âstop or slow down the human factory farming of insectsâ but with what consequences?
âchanges in ag policyâ of what sort and with what consequences?
Thereâs no clear suggestion here that would reduce harm to insects without also significantly harming humans or other animals. You then have to balance human/âanimal and insect welfare, which is impractical to estimate (as Singer suggests), and which leads to absurd conclusions (donât stop locust plagues, let termites eat your house, sweep ants from your path,exterminate anteaters).
I agree that reducing suffering is good by itself, but you havenât suggested any ways to reduce insect suffering without some insect-human utility calculus.
Hmm. It seems unreasonable to argue a person advocating for the development and investigation of a new way of improving the world must first personally specify and articulate a viable and practical program. This detail is the very thing they are working to obtain.
The very article you referenced by Peter Singer promote the ideas and attitudes that you are opposing.
This inconsistency and others (your odd remark of âlost in the weedsâ which I suspect will be your response to more detailed, higher effort comment and telegraphs hostility), as well as your tone, suggests itâs not reasonable to communicate with you, at least with the agenda of advocating for welfare in this cause.
As an aside, I strongly urge you to adjust your approach when communicating your beliefs about longtermism, with vastly more numerous and engaged supporters. In particular, you should equip yourself with substantive arguments instead of borderline ad hominem. You would play into the subtext there that many critics are unreasonable, close minded and less intelligent.