Iâm going to bow outâwasnât my intention to try to âsilenceâ anybody and Iâm not quite sure how we got there!
Henry Stanley đ¸
Iâm still skeptical of using âobviousnessâ/ââplausibilityâ as evidence of a theory being correctâas a mental move it risks proving too much. Multiple theories might have equally obvious implications. Plenty of previously-unthinkable views would have been seen to be deeply un-obvious.
You have your intuitions and I have mineâwe can each say theyâre obvious to us and it gets us no further, surely? Perhaps Iâm being dense.
In Donât Valorize The Void you say:
Omelas is a very good place, and itâs deeply irrational to condemn it. We can demonstrate this by noting that from behind a veil of ignorance, where you had an equal chance to be any affected individual (including the kid in the basement), it would be prudent to gamble on Omelas.
If it was so straightforwardly irrational (dare I say itâinsensible), Le Guin would presumably never have written the story in the first place! Not everyone behind the veil of ignorance would take the gamble, despite the naked assertion that âit would be prudentâ to do so.
This got added as a comment on the original Substack article; think itâs worth reading in this context:
https://ââexpandingcircle.substack.com/ââp/ââthe-dark-side-of-pet-ownership
Not what I was saying. More like, itâs a weak argument to merely say âmy position generates a sensible-sounding conclusion and thus is more likely to be trueâ, and it would surprise me if eg a highly-upvoted EA Forum post used this kind of circular reasoning. Or is that what youâre defending?
I suppose I agree that weâre not obliged to give every crackpot view equal airtimeâI just disagree that âpets have net negative livesâ is such a view.
I think the âpathologyâ comment is probably a norm violation. The âsensibleâ comment feels more like circular reasoning I guess? (Or maybe it doesnât feel obvious to me, and perhaps therefore it irks me more than it does others.)
Regarding the latter: calling a philosophical position âa pathologyâ with no further justification is not the sort of thing I usually expect to find on the forum
Agreed; same for the reference to the position here being strong because âit straightforwardly verifies sensible views on the topicâ.
Although theyâre presented in adjacent sentences, this:
Iâd say that domesticated life seems both (i) clearly good overall, and (ii) the best form of life thatâs realistically available for many non-human animals.
seems distinct from:
(I know Iâd much rather be reincarnated as a well-cared-for companion animal than as a starving, parasite-ridden stray. Yeah, even at the cost of a minute spent tied to a lamppost!)
I would also prefer to be a companion animal over being a stray â but I would probably prefer not to exist than exist as a companion animal.
Needless to say I donât think companion animal lives are âclearlyâ good overall. I think âa minute tied to a lamppostâ is a bit sanguine. Companion animals are subjected to all sorts of unpleasant experiences: surgeries like neutering/âspaying, boredom, lack of autonomy over basic functions and routine, confinement, breeding-related health issues.
I suspect this varies a lotâe.g. I think rabbits probably have overall net negative lives, being prey animals and often neglected, kept in cages outside with little to do, fear from predators, unable to perform their natural habits. Cats and dogs probably have a better time.
I tend to agree; better to be explicit especially as the information is public knowledge anyway.
It refers to this: https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââHqKnreqC3EFF9YcEs/ââ
Interesting that you chose not to name the org in questionâI guess you wanted to focus on the meta-level principle rather than this specific case
Interesting stuff but I think this is a bit too technical/âin the weeds for the average EA forum readerâand itâs not super clear what the EA angle is here.
most peopleâs coworkers arenât trying to reshape the lightcone without public consent so idk, maybe different standards should apply here
Exactly. Daniela and the senior leadership at one of the frontier AI labs are not the same as someoneâs random office colleague. Thereâs a clear public interest angle here in terms of understanding the political and social affiliations of powerful and influential peopleâwhich is simply absent in the case you describe.
From an animal welfarist perspective you could even have the recipe contain a message about how making chicken soup is unethical and should not be attempted.
Oddly I used to work at Pivotal[1] - have very fond memories of the London office with its full breakfast every morning...
Has since been acquired by VMware and gradually killed, and then VMware was acquired again by Broadcom who have really really killed it
- ^
Thereâs almost no mention of it online now as the brand has been killed off
- ^
To what extent do you think this fits the typical EA brief of âimportant, neglected, tractableâ? Even if we think that supporting sturgeon populations is intrinsically valuableâgiven that the fall in sturgeon populations is caused by overfishing for caviar, isnât is more obvious to just⌠not consume it?
Youâve mentioned your experience with burnout in a previous postâI wondered if you were willing to share more about that, and how it influenced your approach to EtG if at all.
Very impressiveâI donât think I have the stomach (so to speak) to put myself through this kind of suffering. Thanks for doing something so selfless and unpleasant for the benefit of anonymous others â¤ď¸
Hoorayâthis is awesome work. Fight the good fight.
I donated to THL last year because of this case; was advised by Founders Pledge that without funding the appeal might fall through and was keen for that not to happen. I wonder what other time-sensitive efforts in this space with room for more funding?
Thanks for all the hard work that went into building/ârebuilding/âmaintaining EA Hub!
Itâs always sad to see old projects get shuttered, especially ones that were a labour of love, so kudos on recognising that itâs the right time to do this.
Not a wholly-unserious suggestion. SWP could do a tie-in with the artist creating these fun knock-offs, capitalise on Swift madness, rehabilitate shrimp as cute in the process.
On that noteâseems like an enormous waste that Wytham Abbey sits empty when it could be used (presumably at very little marginal cost?) while EVF works on selling it.