Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Zarm 03 July 2017 01:44:44PM 0 points [-]

I'd like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they're worth instrumental value, but thats not what we're talking about. I'm arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren't conscious. Many animals are.

Comment author: Alicorn 03 July 2017 11:51:09PM 2 points [-]

I think if you want to have this conversation you should not start a thread by asking for "perspectives on veganism" from people who are not vegans. It would be more honest to announce "I'm a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!"

Comment author: Zarm 29 June 2017 09:12:14PM *  1 point [-]

I see what you're saying but I have to disagree. I agree that humans are worth more. Here's the thing though. You have to compare the numbers. This isn't one animal to one human, where I WOULD pick the human. The fact is that 60+ billion animals are slaughtered each year. And as we both probably know, at that point its just a statistic, but take a moment to think about how much that really is. There's no other number comparable to it.

While I applaud that you are pescetarian, I think more can be done and more should be changed. I think that if you pushed yourself to change, as that's all rationalism is about, it could be just as an excellent a quality of life for yourself if not better. There are soo many foods out there.

I would honestly make the argument that the majority of meat-eaters are not on the curve, but rather willfully ignorant of how bad factory farming is.

Comment author: Alicorn 03 July 2017 04:32:18AM *  1 point [-]

I'm aware that you disagree, that being the premise of the thread, but your argument does not engage with my reasoning, to a degree that makes me concerned that you were not looking for perspectives but targets. Consider:

Trees are not zero important, but people are more important. (I think most people would agree with this?)

While I would not go around gratuitously killing trees for trivial reasons, as long as no qualitative negative effect on the ecosystem or somebody's property or something like that were on the line I would not hesitate to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of trees' lives for even one human's even non-mortal convenience. The trees don't matter in the right way. I still think it would be bad to kill sixty billion trees, but not that bad.

I said "hopefully" because I agree that most people are not consciously or even implicitly finding a place on the QoL/animal suffering tradeoff curve, but just using defaults. I agree that they should not mindlessly use defaults in this way and that most people should probably use fewer animal products than they do. I disagree with the rest of your position as I understand it.

Comment author: Zarm 26 June 2017 11:11:40PM *  2 points [-]

I'm extremely surprised that the percentage of vegans here is only slightly higher than the general public. I would consider myself an aspiring rationalist and I've had countless, countless arguments over the subject of animal rights and from everything I've found (which is a whole lot), the arguments side heavily towards veganism. I can literally play bingo with the responses I get from the average person, that's how reoccurring the rationalizations are. I can go on in much, much greater extant as to why veganism is a good idea, and from posts and comments I've seen on here, it seems that most people on here don't actually know too much about it, but for this I'm going to leave it at this.

Now, I'm not addressing those that say morality is subjective and those that live solely for themselves.

For those that DO think unnecessary suffering is wrong and have other altruistic tendencies, what is your perspective on veganism?

Comment author: Alicorn 28 June 2017 02:14:24AM 0 points [-]

Animals are not zero important, but people are more important. I am a pescetarian because that is the threshold at which I can still enjoy an excellent quality of life, but I don't need to eat chicken fingers and salami to reach that point. Vegans are (hopefully) at a different point on this tradeoff curve than I am and meat-eaters (also hopefully) are at a different point in the other direction.

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 31 May 2017 05:59:55AM *  0 points [-]

It's less that my feelings were hurt (they were, a little, but I've developed a pretty thick skin around "strangers are wrong about me"), and more that you're saying, to me, "hey, please don't be uncharitable or overly critical or focus on point-scoring," and I think the point-scoring exhibited in that post would cause me, in your shoes, to make a symmetric point to my friend. It's a consistency thing, of supporting the norms I want to see in all places, ignoring partisan or loyalty lines (being willing to call out my allies as much as I'm willing to call out a stranger or an enemy).

I guess if I were to ask you to convey a message, it would be "this person thinks you've jumped to unfounded conclusions, and wonders what odds you'd put on 'I might be wrong.'"

Comment author: Alicorn 31 May 2017 06:40:24AM 1 point [-]

I don't really see the situations as symmetrical or calling for identical norms.

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 31 May 2017 04:57:24AM 1 point [-]

Making this top-level instead of troll-feeding:

Make a bet; put up or shut up. $1000 to your $100 that no one opting in to Dragon Army experiences significant emotional distress as a result of its requirements, bet evaluated at the end of the first six months.

I extend this offer to cousin_it and handoflixue (not to 18blahblah because they're not representing themselves as a real person).

Comment author: Alicorn 31 May 2017 05:37:03AM 1 point [-]

Evaluated at the end of six months how?

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 31 May 2017 04:45:37AM *  0 points [-]

Fair point. I will edit the above to remove point-scoring criticism; if this person wanted to be exposed to it, they would've posted here directly. I'll ask you to leave your comment so it's clear what originally occurred.

That being said, they certainly have no qualms about tearing into me. Like, my response to them was not a response to "I am unimpressed" or "I have a negative reaction to this," and I think it's a little disingenuous or unfair of you to summarize their content thusly. It's ... an asymmetric expectation of charity? Holding a double standard? Or something like that. I'd hope you'd offer feedback to them similar to what you said to me here, to see how they respond.

Comment author: Alicorn 31 May 2017 05:32:43AM 3 points [-]

I know her and she has earned some charity from me. You're a stranger soliciting a line of credit. Also, her task is "opine on Tumblr" and yours is "benevolent dictatorship". If you want me to convey to her that your feelings were hurt I could do that for you, I suppose.

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 31 May 2017 03:02:22AM *  0 points [-]

This person's post, while containing some overlap with the more true and useful criticism here, is also not the sort of thing I expect people to cite on LW and not, I think, a useful entry in the back and forth here.

On the other hand, the difference in our levels of endorsement of it explains a lot about why our interaction went south in a hurry.

Quoting Qiaochu:

I would like everyone posting criticism, especially heated criticism, to keep very firmly in mind that Duncan did not have to write this. Whatever your opinion of him, at least make sure you've factored in the evidence that he wrote this whole, weird thing, complete with references to Ender's Game, Fight Club, etc. instead of writing either 1) nothing or 2) something much more reassuring.

There are critics who think Duncan is incompetent and overconfident, and about this hypothesis I can say at least that it is consistent with Duncan having written this post. Then there are critics who think Duncan is, I dunno, evil or power-hungry or something, and I think those people are mostly failing to see what is in front of them.

Comment author: Alicorn 31 May 2017 04:44:16AM 5 points [-]

I was tentatively willing to give you some benefit of the doubt even though I don't know you but I'm really disappointed that you feel the need to score points against a rationalist-adjacent posting to her Tumblr about how your post looks to her from her outside vantage point. I brought a similar-amount-of-adjacent friend to the seder and it freaked her out. Rationalist shit looks bizarre from a couple steps away. You do not have to slam my friend for not being impressed with you.

Comment author: Duncan_Sabien 27 May 2017 03:01:06AM 1 point [-]

Hmmm. It might be good to install as a house norm that everyone has an outside advisor that they commit to checking in with, either once a week or biweekly. Like, someone not directly affiliated with Dragon Army in any way.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 May 2017 08:52:13PM 5 points [-]

Throwing in with Malcolm as interested in being an outside sanity check.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 April 2017 06:10:51AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 07 April 2017 07:32:05PM 0 points [-]

No, you wouldn't. Cameras do anti-shake (image stabilization) very very well these days. With certain cameras people get sharp images from multi-second (!) hand-held exposures. For kids, the subject movement will be the determining factor, your hands can shake all they want.

Comment author: Alicorn 08 April 2017 05:43:59PM 0 points [-]

Wow, okay, I guess that might be worth it. Spouse has a "nice camera" but I don't know if it does this.

View more: Next