this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
737 points (98.4% liked)

Futurology

3324 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

What if it requires 1/1000th the number of animals … but each one suffers a hundred times more?

Would it be worth it?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do you quantify suffering?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you don’t have a way of quantifying suffering, perhaps all utilitarian calculus is bunk?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 1 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately, I don't really understand your response.

You talked about one hundred times the suffering. What does that mean? To me, the way animals are held in mass production is completely unethical and there is no way to make it worse... So how do you make the animals suffer even more?

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From a utilitarian perspective, you're still reducing overall suffering by an order of magnitude, so your scenario is still a greater good.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

This assumes a linear value function of course

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

stem cells can suffer? this isn't cloning an animal, it's cloning certain tissues.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

Hence the word “if” here. A hypothetical scenario.