←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
n4r9 ◴[] No.42173011[source]
Apologies for focusing on just one sentence of this article, but I feel like it's crucial to the overall argument:

> ... if [shrimp] suffer only 3% as intensely as we do ...

Does this proposition make sense? It's not obvious to me that we can assign percentage values to suffering, or compare it to human suffering, or treat the values in a linear fashion.

It reminds me of that vaguely absurd thought experiment where you compare one person undergoing a lifetime of intense torture vs billions upon billions of humans getting a fleck of dust in their eyes. I just cannot square choosing the former with my conscience. Maybe I'm too unimaginative to comprehend so many billions of bits of dust.

replies(10): >>42173107 #>>42173149 #>>42173164 #>>42173244 #>>42173255 #>>42173304 #>>42173441 #>>42175565 #>>42175936 #>>42177306 #
jjcm ◴[] No.42175936[source]
No the proposition doesn’t make sense. The 3% number comes from this: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-es...

The page gives 3% to shrimp because their lifespan is 3% that of humans. It’s a terrible avenue for this estimate. By the same estimate, giant tortoises are less ethical to kill than humans. The heavens alone can judge you for the war crimes you’d be committing by killing a Turritopsis dohrnii.

Number of neurons is the least-bad objective measurement in my eyes. Arthropods famously have very few neurons, <100k compared to 86b in humans. That’s a 1:1000000 neuron ratio, which feels like a more appropriate ratio for suffering than a lifespan-based ratio, though both are terrible.

replies(2): >>42176353 #>>42178958 #
1. BenthamsBulldog ◴[] No.42178958[source]
No, it's not about lifespan. They have a very complicated report that tries to quantify intensity of suffering relying on a variety of proxies