= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Be comfortable with hypocrisy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
I'm hesitant at the idea of pescetarianism. If larger animals are more sentient, then fish don't matter much, and that's a good idea. But some people argue otherwise. If there's a significant chance that fish are as sentient as anything else, eating only fish is a terrible idea.
While I was adjusting to vegetarianism, I tried to eat mid-sized animals, so it wouldn't be terrible either way.
Perhaps beef-only could be an alternative to fish-only as a stepping stone? I think I remember beef getting better ratings than most other things in some articles comparing utility of eating animals with the assumption that all creatures suffer equally. (Pigs are smarter than cows, I think, but I'm not sure if you were considering them mid-size or large.)
I figure it would be more brain size than intelligence. I would expect pain would increase by having more neurons to feel it, not having a deeper understanding of what it is.
Beef-only has the opposite problem. If not all creatures suffer equally, avoiding cows would be most important.
Ok, this makes sense.
Also, I found the article. If those numbers are somewhat correct, maybe add an adjustment for brain mass to it? But just from rough guesses at the affect that would have, I see why going for medium-size animals makes sense.