this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
734 points (98.4% liked)

Futurology

1773 readers
92 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

What if it requires 1/1000th the number of animals … but each one suffers a hundred times more?

Would it be worth it?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How do you quantify suffering?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you don’t have a way of quantifying suffering, perhaps all utilitarian calculus is bunk?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 1 points 7 months ago

Unfortunately, I don't really understand your response.

You talked about one hundred times the suffering. What does that mean? To me, the way animals are held in mass production is completely unethical and there is no way to make it worse... So how do you make the animals suffer even more?

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From a utilitarian perspective, you're still reducing overall suffering by an order of magnitude, so your scenario is still a greater good.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

This assumes a linear value function of course

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

stem cells can suffer? this isn't cloning an animal, it's cloning certain tissues.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago

Hence the word “if” here. A hypothetical scenario.