We can't decide because we don't have a machine that objectively measures consciousness. But it's safer to err on the side of mercy than to accidentally create hell on Earth.

> We can't decide because we don't have a machine that objectively measures consciousness.

We can say that insects don't have the brain capacity to be conscious. I'm pretty sure we might say the same about many fish species.

I'm quite certain that the current scientific understanding is that we don't know how consciousness works at all. This is exactly the kind of landscape where one might expect big surprises.

Think about how useless our intuitions proved to be when it comes to other phenomena like gravity or electromagnetism. It took a while to (kind of) figure these out despite them being easier to measure than consciousness.

W.r.t. fish: they act in a way you'd expect a creature to act if they felt pain. If they had vocal cords and thus the ability to scream, would you agree that they feel pain? Same applies to insects.

I wish most people be so comfortable in life that they start thinking this bs.

I saw this linked a couple of days ago on HN, it made me think more deeply about antropomorphizing technology: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/E...

I guess it also applies at some level to animals and insects - we can assume they feel some of the basic things as us, but their "understanding" of it might be quite different.

Anthropomorphism is probably just a result of human capacity for theory of mind. That is the ability to understand mental states in ourselves and others. We can look at the world from the animal hunting us, or the animal we are hunting. That is ridiculously useful, but may misfire sometimes. We think things are exhibiting human properties when we really shouldn't.

Yes, a biological machine. Just like us.

You'd be surprised how many fellow humans are ready to throw you under a bus. So be careful with statements like that, it won't end in your favor.

Indeed, how do we decide anything that's on a gradient?

Ethics aren’t universal.

Are you arguing against deciding?

I'm arguing that the decision might not be the same for everyone.

> This is all disgraceful, and if we can't at least respect the animals we eat, we probably don't deserve to eat them.

This will sound completely bananas to someone who doesn't live by the same principles as you do.

I agree.