←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
VyseofArcadia ◴[18 Nov 24 15:17 UTC] No.42173084[source]▶
This is an intensely weird read. I kept waiting for the satire to become more obvious. Maybe throw in a reference or two to the Futurama episode "The Problem with Popplers". But by the end I can only conclude that it is sincere.

I guess what strikes me the most odd is that not eating shrimp is never suggested as an alternative. It starts from the premise that, well, we're going to eat shrimp anyway, so the least we could do is give them a painless death first. If you follow this logic to its extremes, you get things like, "well, it's expensive to actually feed these starving children, but for just pennies a day you can make sure they at least die painlessly".

replies(1): >>42173201 #
InsideOutSanta ◴[18 Nov 24 15:25 UTC] No.42173201[source]▶
You have no control over other people's eating habits, but you do have control over your own charitable spending.

If you're considering how to best spend your money, it doesn't matter that not eating shrimp would be an even better solution than preventing pain when they are killed. It only matters what the most effective way of spending your money is.

replies(1): >>42175516 #
AlexandrB ◴[18 Nov 24 18:44 UTC] No.42175516[source]▶
If we're talking ethical giving, I'd rather give that money to a panhandler where there's a chance it relieves even a little bit of human suffering.
replies(1): >>42176121 #
1. DangitBobby ◴[18 Nov 24 19:43 UTC] No.42176121[source]▶
TFA addresses this. Many humans believe that no amount of animal suffering is as bad as any amount of human suffering, which is just a failure of humans to empathetize. Human suffering is not all that matters, and people who can't be convinced otherwise probably aren't the target audience.