Re:The shrimp welfare project
by RodgerTheGreat on Monday November 18, 2024 @10:51AM
(#42173519)
If you find this line of argument compelling, consider another alternative: engineering an organism which is much smaller and consumes far fewer resources than shrimp but which exists in a neurologically stable state of perpetual bliss. The survival and replication of this species of biological prayer-wheels would rapidly become a far stronger moral imperative (within the logic of the article) than any consideration for shrimp, or indeed humans.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The shrimp welfare project
by VyseofArcadia on Monday November 18, 2024 @11:15AM
(#42173812)
Prayer wheels is an excellent example of where this kind of logic leads.
Kudos to you for making the connection.
Re:The shrimp welfare project
by 0xDEAFBEAD on Monday November 18, 2024 @11:05AM
(#42173693)
If you start that charity, I think there's a decent chance the substack author will write a blog post about it. Seems like a great idea to me.
I don't think this is the same at all. Creation of good is not necessarily as good as avoidance of harm is bad.
Re:The shrimp welfare project
by VyseofArcadia on Monday November 18, 2024 @11:46AM
(#42174168)
It depends on your goals, right?
If your goal is "maximize total happiness", then engineering blisshrimp is obviously the winning play. If your goal is "minimize total suffering", than the play is to engineer something that 1. experiences no suffering, 2. is delicious, and 3. outcompetes existing shrimp so we don't have to worry about their suffering anymore.
Ideally we'd engineer something that is in a state of perpetual bliss and wants to be eaten, not unlike the cows in Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
> If your goal is "minimize total suffering", than the play is to engineer something that 1. experiences no suffering, 2. is delicious, and 3. outcompetes existing shrimp so we don't have to worry about their suffering anymore.
Eh, only if you're minimizing suffering per living being. Not total suffering. Having more happy creatures doesn't cancel out the sad ones. But I see what you mean.
> Eh, only if you're minimizing suffering per living being. Not total suffering. Having more happy creatures doesn't cancel out the sad ones. But I see what you mean.
According to this guy it does.
Re:The shrimp welfare project
by BenthamsBulldog on Monday November 18, 2024 @07:48PM
(#42179008)
But thinking that extreme suffering is bad doesn't require thinking that wireheading for tons of pleasure is good.