And what is the alternative to insecticides? Your suggestions are vague and seem naive.
I take insects outside instead of killing them when I can, but I think you’re getting lost in the weeds and heading towards absurd conclusions.
The question of whether insects suffer is probably unanswerable. Because the conclusions would be absurd if we do consider their suffering significant, we need to treat it as mostly insignificant. The same goes for plants, fungus, diatoms, bacteria.
I take insects outside instead of killing them when I can, but I think you’re getting lost in the weeds and heading towards absurd conclusions.
I don’t follow how this comment is consistent with the parent comment you are replying to.
For example, there are little details in that parent comment to be lost in.
Reducing the development of a nascent industry doesn’t seem absurd.
Gene drives and other technologies are being used to edit mosquitoes populations today. It seems plausible that moderate changes in ecology (especially if mitigating the consequences of a human monoculture) can help reduce instances of unnatural, huge populations of insects.
Based on its opening, the Singer article seems to be agnostic or sympathetic to insect welfare and consistent with the comment you responded to. Can you explain why you referenced it?
I didn’t read it because as doing so doesn’t seem to be a promising use of time based on it’s opening and the content of the comment recommending it (it seems like it would support, not update against the parent comment which I do not see requiring further authority).
“get a sense of the suffering of individual insects” how?
“stop or slow down the human factory farming of insects” but with what consequences?
“changes in ag policy” of what sort and with what consequences?
There’s no clear suggestion here that would reduce harm to insects without also significantly harming humans or other animals. You then have to balance human/animal and insect welfare, which is impractical to estimate (as Singer suggests), and which leads to absurd conclusions (don’t 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 haven’t 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 “lost in the weeds” which I suspect will be your response to more detailed, higher effort comment and telegraphs hostility), as well as your tone, suggests it’s 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.
And what is the alternative to insecticides? Your suggestions are vague and seem naive.
I take insects outside instead of killing them when I can, but I think you’re getting lost in the weeds and heading towards absurd conclusions.
The question of whether insects suffer is probably unanswerable. Because the conclusions would be absurd if we do consider their suffering significant, we need to treat it as mostly insignificant. The same goes for plants, fungus, diatoms, bacteria.
I suggest you look at what others have written re. insects. For example, Peter Singer wrote on insects: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/are-insects-conscious-by-peter-singer-2016-05
I don’t follow how this comment is consistent with the parent comment you are replying to.
For example, there are little details in that parent comment to be lost in.
Reducing the development of a nascent industry doesn’t seem absurd.
Gene drives and other technologies are being used to edit mosquitoes populations today. It seems plausible that moderate changes in ecology (especially if mitigating the consequences of a human monoculture) can help reduce instances of unnatural, huge populations of insects.
Based on its opening, the Singer article seems to be agnostic or sympathetic to insect welfare and consistent with the comment you responded to. Can you explain why you referenced it?
I didn’t read it because as doing so doesn’t seem to be a promising use of time based on it’s opening and the content of the comment recommending it (it seems like it would support, not update against the parent comment which I do not see requiring further authority).
Your suggestions are vague.
“stop using … insecticides” and do what instead?
“get a sense of the suffering of individual insects” how?
“stop or slow down the human factory farming of insects” but with what consequences?
“changes in ag policy” of what sort and with what consequences?
There’s no clear suggestion here that would reduce harm to insects without also significantly harming humans or other animals. You then have to balance human/animal and insect welfare, which is impractical to estimate (as Singer suggests), and which leads to absurd conclusions (don’t 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 haven’t 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 “lost in the weeds” which I suspect will be your response to more detailed, higher effort comment and telegraphs hostility), as well as your tone, suggests it’s 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.