Saying crazy but philosophically valid things is fine as long as it’s useful. Many of our current morals would have looked crazy 300 years ago, so I’m glad people spoke up.
Nematode welfare is not productive conversation. The conclusions are clearly not tenable, the uncertainties too broad, the key questions (is a nematode life net good or bad) unanswerable. What is the purpose?
Saying crazy but philosophically valid things is fine as long as it’s useful. Many of our current morals would have looked crazy 300 years ago, so I’m glad people spoke up.
Nematode welfare is not productive conversation. The conclusions are clearly not tenable, the uncertainties too broad, the key questions (is a nematode life net good or bad) unanswerable. What is the purpose?