←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
RodgerTheGreat ◴[18 Nov 24 15:51 UTC] No.42173519[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>42173605 #>>42173693 #>>42173812 #>>42179008 #
1. sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:58 UTC] No.42173605[source]▶
I don't think this is the same at all. Creation of good is not necessarily as good as avoidance of harm is bad.
replies(1): >>42174168 #
2. VyseofArcadia ◴[18 Nov 24 16:46 UTC] No.42174168[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>42174215 #
3. sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 16:50 UTC] No.42174215[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>42176615 #
4. Vecr ◴[18 Nov 24 20:31 UTC] No.42176615{3}[source]▶
> 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.