Thanks, the title is probably the main reason I didn’t give up on writing all this 😂 I came up with it and Peter approved it.
In the series, I mean the first. For precisely this reason, when discussing the latter, I use the term “animal wellbeing” instead.
Hi Ariel! Thank you for the kind words. May I suggest moving this discussion to the overview piece given its cross-cutting content?
And yes perhaps a sequence might have been better, but I’d already started, had some glitches trying to create a sequence, and got the impression (from other examples) that sequences are “heavier”/longer.
Edit: I’ll just answer here while I have the time. I especially appreciate you highlighting the points you thought were good, thank you.
Clearly I disagree with Tomasik with respect to the point about “long-run effects on society’s values”. What you said seems possible, rather than plausible, but that just suggests to me we should be careful about the message/argument (whenever I ask people why they care about “the environment”, it’s pretty easy to get most to see it’s due to instrumental value to sentient beings). And yes, if ones values “robust net-positive effects” above abolition, then yes the implication you draw out seems correct, but I don’t see a good reason to do that valuation in the first place.
I thought I answered these questions in the first post (as yes and abolitionism)? And I don’t understand what the relevant similarities with prohibition are to comment meaningfully.
Not more decisive, but worth keeping in mind given the difficulty with cultured meat.
[Transcript has been moved to the body of the post]
Hi Matt, thanks for commenting. I think it would be helpful if this disagreement was more specific. I list three reasons in the following sentence, go into detail about the first two reason in posts 3 and 2 respectively.
From reading the chapter you pointed to, it seems like you have had some frustrating experiences with the community, who prioritise purity over effectiveness. I relate, and end up avoiding engaging in those cases.
I address some of the points made in that chapter and more in the 3rd post, except for the old liberation pledge, for which the chapter assigns a pretty uncharitable motivation. Afaict the internal logic (based on the end of foot-binding girls in China) was sensible, whether or not it works is different: even they have realised it doesn’t and have since changed tactics https://paxfauna.org/rethinking-the-liberation-pledge/
Which I think illustrates my overall point: there are advocates out there who are pragmatic, but have an abolitionist-leaning mindset (and sometimes have ideas which are worth considering)