banx comments on Open thread, 3-8 June 2014 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: David_Gerard 03 June 2014 08:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jaibot 03 June 2014 02:44:06PM *  3 points [-]

Effective animal altruism question: I may be getting a dog. Dogs are omnivores who seem to need meat to stay healthy. What's the most ethical way to keep my hypothetical dog happy and healthy?

Edit: Answers Pet Foods appears to satisfice. I'll be going with this pending evidence that there's a better solution.

Comment author: banx 03 June 2014 05:32:14PM 0 points [-]

I don't have a full answer to the question, but if you do feed the dog meat, one starting point would be to prefer meat that has less suffering associated with it. It is typically claimed that beef has less suffering per unit mass associated with it than pork and much less than chicken, simply because you get a lot more from one individual. The counterargument would be to claim that cows > pigs > chickens in intelligence/complexity to a great enough extent to outweigh this consideration.

I'm curious: are there specific reasons to believe that dogs need meat while humans (also omnivores) do not? A quick Google search finds lots of vegetarians happy to proclaim that dogs can be vegetarian too, but I haven't looked into details.

Comment author: Ben_LandauTaylor 03 June 2014 06:43:30PM 3 points [-]

The counterargument would be to claim that cows > pigs > chickens in intelligence/complexity

My understanding is that pigs > cows >> chickens. Poultry vs mammal is a difficult question that depends on nebulous value judgments, but I thought it was fairly settled that beef causes less suffering/mass than other mammals.

Comment author: jaibot 03 June 2014 06:47:12PM 1 point [-]

Pigs on top surprises me, given that I thought pigs had more intelligence/awareness than other meat sources (as measured by nebulous educated guessing on our part).

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 04 June 2014 04:26:19PM 2 points [-]

From his last sentence, Ben agrees with you. He has just reversed the meaning of the inequality sign.

Comment author: jaibot 04 June 2014 06:01:48PM 0 points [-]

You're right, I failed a parse check. Thanks!

Comment author: David_Gerard 04 June 2014 02:21:19PM 0 points [-]

Huskies love fish (for obvious practical reasons), and fish are just dumb. (Though the way we achieve that is to mix fishy cat food into our husky's dog food, which is random tinned dog food.)

Comment author: jaibot 03 June 2014 06:45:46PM 0 points [-]

Here's a quick citation: http://pets.webmd.com/features/vegetarian-diet-dogs-cats

tldr: Dogs are opportunistic carnivores more than omnivores. They eat whatever they can get, and they'll probably survive without meat, but they'll be missing a bunch of things their bodies expect to have.