This analysis treats emissions and animal suffering as entirely separate categories of harm, I think a better analysis would be to try to quantify how different amounts of global warming would contribute to animal suffering and death via issues like habitat loss, along with the way that larger animals require more existing ecosystems like forests to be replaced with farmland to grow food for them (even if you think not in terms of individual animals but in terms of farmland needed per kg of meat for chicken vs beef), which also contributes to habitat loss and therefore to animal death/suffering.
I don't think we can do that, we don't know enough about tipping points, or ecological dynamics, or even how many animals there are. Not only do we have too many unknowns, we likely have countless unknown unknowns.
Well, that would seem to suggest we shouldn't rely on calculations which ignore the habitat loss factor if it's at least fairly plausible the true answer might tip the balance in favor of eating meat from smaller animals like chickens. Either we have to rely on qualitative intuitions rather than calculations (as the vegan in the anecdote was presumably doing), or if we do want to base our decision on probability calculations, we should understand the probabilities to be epistemic rather than frequentist and just put in our best guesses about those unknown unknowns. But relying on a calculation which entirely omits this factor just because it's too hard to calculate seems like an case of the behavior pointed to in the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/11/better-light/
To flip the title of this piece around: if your cause really is that important to you, try not to be annoying. Humans are social creatures and aren't generally receptive to the beliefs of annoying people.
I like the article! Im surprised you still keep in touch with the vegan, she said to your face that you like animal rape? I think she thinks shes joking while saying that? I feel like i can picture who she is, she makes obscene "jokes" that are also sort of insults.
Also when looking at the section with the soyjack meme, I think people will remember the first image more, its a thing in spaced repition software (such as anki) to not do multiple choice questions, or "negative" questions. Because people will end up remembering the wrong answer.
Thanks Luke! I actually messaged the vegan to tell her I thought her beliefs were probably good all these years later.
Uh oh, if the only thing people remember from this article is the first Soyjack vs Chad meme I don’t know if I’ve proved my point or undermined it, lol.
Well, now you’ve got at least one online vegan “friend” who commends you for doing the math and starting with chickens, and thinks that accidentally making some people switch from eating cows to chickens for climate reasons may be the worst side effect that current vegan advocates have.
If you grew up with western religions, this not only seems true, but it even seems self-evident. However, it isn’t actually the case. Particularly, many eastern religions allow for doubling up on religions. Philosophers and religious anthropologists have categorized four different mechanisms by which they do so: Inclusivism, pluralism, underdetermination, and orthopraxy over orthodoxy.
There are religions that champion “inclusivism”. For example, the Baháʼí Faith has theological-inclusivism baked into its foundations, saying that all major traditions are stages in a single, progressive revelation.
There are also religions that champion plurality of truth claims. For example, in Hinduism the Rig Veda states: “Truth is one, the sages call it by many names.” So while not every claim is accepted, multiple different claims can be accepted (e.g. monism, qualified dualism, theism).
Then there are the religions that have a huge amount of underdetermination. For example, many forms of Buddhism don’t even talk about a creator-god, so you can pick basically whatever you want (including no god).
Then even more extreme are the religions that don’t even care about belief. The so-called Orthopraxic religions only really care about the rituals/behavior and not really private beliefs, like e.g. Confucianism.
This means you can be a Baháʼí-Hindu-Buddhist-Confucianist without any worries.
What's the point of making a logical argument against people who don't care about or dislike the idea of truth to the point where they orient their lives around ideological commitments against it, when these people presumably don't care about whether a proposition is true or have any significant values about anything real to point or appeal to?
I don’t think this is something that’s easily overcome by noticing it! This isn’t something where I’m complaining “wow all the people I dislike are dominated by tribalism”. I think this is a common force that happens whenever a belief gets big enough to attract a group, and it’s interesting to notice how it appears everywhere.
Starting with smaller animals is absolutely better than starting with cows! Your old friend is way off the mark.
Btw if you want any advice on the diet change, feel free to DM me
Appreciate it Connor! I’ll DM you any questions I have.
Agreed, avoiding smaller animals is more important. Here’s an analysis that shows just that, if you want something you can point people to: https://bobjacobs.substack.com/p/which-meat-to-eat-co-vs-animal-suffering
This analysis treats emissions and animal suffering as entirely separate categories of harm, I think a better analysis would be to try to quantify how different amounts of global warming would contribute to animal suffering and death via issues like habitat loss, along with the way that larger animals require more existing ecosystems like forests to be replaced with farmland to grow food for them (even if you think not in terms of individual animals but in terms of farmland needed per kg of meat for chicken vs beef), which also contributes to habitat loss and therefore to animal death/suffering.
I don't think we can do that, we don't know enough about tipping points, or ecological dynamics, or even how many animals there are. Not only do we have too many unknowns, we likely have countless unknown unknowns.
Well, that would seem to suggest we shouldn't rely on calculations which ignore the habitat loss factor if it's at least fairly plausible the true answer might tip the balance in favor of eating meat from smaller animals like chickens. Either we have to rely on qualitative intuitions rather than calculations (as the vegan in the anecdote was presumably doing), or if we do want to base our decision on probability calculations, we should understand the probabilities to be epistemic rather than frequentist and just put in our best guesses about those unknown unknowns. But relying on a calculation which entirely omits this factor just because it's too hard to calculate seems like an case of the behavior pointed to in the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/11/better-light/
Yes! You can even kinda count it out: https://bobjacobs.substack.com/p/which-meat-to-eat-co-vs-animal-suffering
Eat lower on the food chain and your diet will have fewer pesticides and expend less energy to produce!
Subscribed, tribesman!
To flip the title of this piece around: if your cause really is that important to you, try not to be annoying. Humans are social creatures and aren't generally receptive to the beliefs of annoying people.
Precisely. If you believe in a cause and wish to further it, it is important to choose an effective strategy for doing this.
I like the article! Im surprised you still keep in touch with the vegan, she said to your face that you like animal rape? I think she thinks shes joking while saying that? I feel like i can picture who she is, she makes obscene "jokes" that are also sort of insults.
Also when looking at the section with the soyjack meme, I think people will remember the first image more, its a thing in spaced repition software (such as anki) to not do multiple choice questions, or "negative" questions. Because people will end up remembering the wrong answer.
I.e. "dont remember the pink elephant"
Thanks Luke! I actually messaged the vegan to tell her I thought her beliefs were probably good all these years later.
Uh oh, if the only thing people remember from this article is the first Soyjack vs Chad meme I don’t know if I’ve proved my point or undermined it, lol.
Well, now you’ve got at least one online vegan “friend” who commends you for doing the math and starting with chickens, and thinks that accidentally making some people switch from eating cows to chickens for climate reasons may be the worst side effect that current vegan advocates have.
Only one religion can be correct
If you grew up with western religions, this not only seems true, but it even seems self-evident. However, it isn’t actually the case. Particularly, many eastern religions allow for doubling up on religions. Philosophers and religious anthropologists have categorized four different mechanisms by which they do so: Inclusivism, pluralism, underdetermination, and orthopraxy over orthodoxy.
There are religions that champion “inclusivism”. For example, the Baháʼí Faith has theological-inclusivism baked into its foundations, saying that all major traditions are stages in a single, progressive revelation.
There are also religions that champion plurality of truth claims. For example, in Hinduism the Rig Veda states: “Truth is one, the sages call it by many names.” So while not every claim is accepted, multiple different claims can be accepted (e.g. monism, qualified dualism, theism).
Then there are the religions that have a huge amount of underdetermination. For example, many forms of Buddhism don’t even talk about a creator-god, so you can pick basically whatever you want (including no god).
Then even more extreme are the religions that don’t even care about belief. The so-called Orthopraxic religions only really care about the rituals/behavior and not really private beliefs, like e.g. Confucianism.
This means you can be a Baháʼí-Hindu-Buddhist-Confucianist without any worries.
What's the point of making a logical argument against people who don't care about or dislike the idea of truth to the point where they orient their lives around ideological commitments against it, when these people presumably don't care about whether a proposition is true or have any significant values about anything real to point or appeal to?
I don’t think this is something that’s easily overcome by noticing it! This isn’t something where I’m complaining “wow all the people I dislike are dominated by tribalism”. I think this is a common force that happens whenever a belief gets big enough to attract a group, and it’s interesting to notice how it appears everywhere.
Fixed, thank you.