←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bhelkey ◴[18 Nov 24 15:35 UTC] No.42173325[source]▶
This two thousand word article boils down to, 1) every dollar donated saves ~1,500 shrimp per year from agony in perpituaty and 2) saving 32 shrimp from agony is morally equivalent to saving 1 human from agony.

Neither of these points are well supported by the article. Nor are they well supported by the copious links scattered through the blog post.

For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved.

replies(1): >>42173344 #
sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:37 UTC] No.42173344[source]▶
> For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved.

It's in the exact webpage linked there. You just didn't scroll down enough.

> Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum.

https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-we...

replies(1): >>42173912 #
bhelkey ◴[18 Nov 24 16:22 UTC] No.42173912[source]▶
The purpose of a citation is to provide further evidence supporting the claim. This instead links to a ~thousand word article. A single sentence of which is relevant. Instead of supporting the claim, it instead restates the claim.
replies(1): >>42174249 #
1. sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 16:52 UTC] No.42174249{3}[source]▶
It's a primary source from the organization doing the partnership with Tesco. Why would they cite anything? Who would they cite?

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/293...

replies(1): >>42175645 #
2. bhelkey ◴[18 Nov 24 18:55 UTC] No.42175645[source]▶
> It's a primary source

It's not a primary source. It's a one sentence summary of a secondary source. This[1] is the primary source of the Tesco commitment.

[1] https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/t...

replies(1): >>42176807 #
3. sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 20:46 UTC] No.42176807[source]▶
Given that two organizations make an agreement, I'd say a statement by either organization is considered a primary source of said agreement.
replies(1): >>42178121 #
4. bhelkey ◴[18 Nov 24 23:03 UTC] No.42178121{3}[source]▶
This is the quote:

> Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum.

It is a secondary source. It does not present firsthand information. It describes commitments made by Tesco, Sainsbury's, and others.

Setting this aside, the point I made is simple. This article argues for a radical change in morality; folks generally view a human life as worth much much more than 32 shrimp lives.

A well-written radical argument should understand how it differs from mainstream thought and focus on the premise(s) that underlies this difference. As I am unimpressed with the premises, I find the article unconvincing.