You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Tetronian comments on [link] SMBC on utilitarianism and vegatarianism. - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: mkehrt 16 October 2011 03:29AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (69)

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 16 October 2011 11:29:20PM *  16 points [-]

Would eating meat somehow become more moral if we were to genetically engineer beef into an almost unrecognizable form with zero neurons to kill?

Yes. Killing something that has no mental faculties whatsoever is definitely better than killing something that can feel pain and may be dimly self-aware.

Comment author: Xachariah 17 October 2011 12:46:58AM 4 points [-]

While this may be true on an individual basis, it seems abhorrent on a species level. I'll let JenniferRM to put it much better than I could:

Supposing that there was something (vampires?) that preyed on humans and that we had absolutely no pragmatic recourse against these new apex predators (imagine saying "don't eat me!" to a nano-wielding fusion-powered super-intelligence that likes eating humans for some reason) what policy for the consumption of humans would we hope that they adopted? Do we want them to start eating human shaped tofu and relegate humans to zoos and textbooks? Do we want them to bioengineer brainless human-flavored vat steaks and let wildtype humans go extinct? Do we want them to give us adequate human lives and then eat us in our 40's before our flavor goes off? Do we just want them to figure out what maximizes the happiness/virtue/number of vampires (maybe re-engineering themselves to eat algea and wheat and putting every calorie that strikes the planet into the production of this food)? Do we want them to manage wild human populations such that global biomass and biodiversity is maximized? Do we want them to domesticate us via manipulation of our genetics into a variety of types designed to serve specific ends within their economy? Maybe they could offer us some kind of "minotaur feeding treaty" where we managed some of these issues ourselves in exchange for super-trinkets? Lots of those suggestions feel to me like they have good points and bad points... so framing the question this way helps me see that I don't really know what kind of global dietary regime that I really want to bring about with my food choices as an apex predator. I am confused.

Once modified into an appropriate species, I agree with you that each individual murder would be less evil. But the act of modifying an entire species for perpetuity (or the extinction of their species) would vastly overwhelm each kill together...I think. Then again my ethics system isn't really designed to balance such concerns as "permanent extinction (except zoos) of a species" vs "perpetual slavery and torture of a species." I can only say that I wouldn't want that to happen to my species, and I cannot imagine any conscious species desiring such an outcome.

Comment author: Raemon 17 October 2011 03:26:35AM 7 points [-]

Very good framework for looking at the problem. My answer is still non-sentient-vat-people, assuming it can be done cost effectively in a relatively small area. A few humans are presumably sacrificed during the research necessary to breed the vat-people, afterwards it doesn't affect sentients.

The extinction of humanity is a separate issue, which will happen regardless of whether we're eaten, because the vampires want our land. (We are similarly doing the same thing to plenty of animals that we don't eat). My preference is for the vampires to do their best to live in concentrated areas to avoid driving us to extinction. My actual expectation is for the Vampires to, at best, create large reserves a la National Parks where we live mostly on our own.

Comment author: Desrtopa 17 October 2011 04:50:04PM 4 points [-]

The trouble with that framework, I think, is that it makes it hard for us to think of the predators as having equal moral weight to humans, let alone greater. We'll tend to think of what scenario is most preferable to humans, but give little if any consideration to what scenario is most preferable to the predators.

Comment author: lessdazed 17 October 2011 08:06:44PM 2 points [-]

That seems like the sort of thing that varies from person to person.

Comment author: Pfft 18 October 2011 09:13:04PM 3 points [-]

One difference between cows and humans is that humans have a preference about the continued existence of mankind, while cows are presumably unaware of and indifferent to the existence of cow-kind. A lot of the persuasive force of the argument comes from the feeling that "we wouldn't like it if they did it to us" -- but the cows would not feel the same dislike.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit