Is it still a facepalm given the rest of the sentence? “So, s-risks are roughly as severe as factory farming, but with an even larger scope.” The word “severe” is being used in a technical sense (discussed a few paragraphs earlier) to mean something like “per individual badness” without considering scope.
I think the claim that s-risks are roughly as severe as factory farming “per individual badness” is unsubstantiated. But it is reasonable to claim that experiencing either would be worse than death, “hellish”. Remember, Hell has circles.
The section presumes that the audience agrees wrt veganism. To an audience who isn’t on board with EA veganism, that line comes across as the “arson, murder, and jaywalking” trope.
Notably, the great majority of them don’t have the slightest clue about farming in general or factory farming in particular. Don’t mistake social signaling for actual positions.
As the expression about knowing “how the sausage is made” attests, generally the more people learn about it, the less they like it.
Of course, veganism is very far from being an immediate consequence of disliking factory farming. (Similarly, refusing to pay taxes is very far from being an immediate consequence of disliking government policy.)
As the expression about knowing “how the sausage is made” attests, generally the more people learn about it, the less they like it.
That’s not obvious to me.
I agree that the more people are exposed to anti-factory-farming propaganda, the more they are influenced by it, but that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
Facepalm was a severe understatement, this quote is a direct ticket to the loony bin. I recommend poking your head out of the bubble once in a while—it’s a whole world out there. For example, some horrible terrible no-good people—like me—consider factory farming to be an efficient way of producing a lot of food at reasonable cost.
This sentence reads approximately as “Literal genocide (e.g. Rwanda) is roughly as severe as using a masculine pronoun with respect to a nonspecific person, but with an even larger scope”.
The steeliest steelman that I can come up with is that you’re utterly out of touch with the Normies.
I sympathize with your feeling of alienation at the comment, and thanks for offering this perspective that seems outlandish to me. I don’t think I agree with you re who the ‘normies’ are, but I suspect that this may not be a fruitful thing to even argue about.
Side note: I’m reminded of the discussion here. (It seems tricky to find a good way to point out that other people are presenting their normative views in a way that signals an unfair consensus, without getting into/accused of identify politics or having to throw around words like “loony bin” or fighting over who the ‘normies’ are.)
Yes, we clearly have very different worldviews. I don’t think alienation is the right word here, it’s just that different people think about the world differently and IMHO that’s perfectly fine (to clarify, I mean values and normative statements, not facts). And, of course, you have no obligation at all to do something about it.
Direct quote: “So, s-risks are roughly as severe as factory farming”
/facepalm
Is it still a facepalm given the rest of the sentence? “So, s-risks are roughly as severe as factory farming, but with an even larger scope.” The word “severe” is being used in a technical sense (discussed a few paragraphs earlier) to mean something like “per individual badness” without considering scope.
I think the claim that s-risks are roughly as severe as factory farming “per individual badness” is unsubstantiated. But it is reasonable to claim that experiencing either would be worse than death, “hellish”. Remember, Hell has circles.
The section presumes that the audience agrees wrt veganism. To an audience who isn’t on board with EA veganism, that line comes across as the “arson, murder, and jaywalking” trope.
A lot of people who disagree with veganism agree that factory farming is terrible. Like, more than 50% of the population I’d say.
Notably, the great majority of them don’t have the slightest clue about farming in general or factory farming in particular. Don’t mistake social signaling for actual positions.
As the expression about knowing “how the sausage is made” attests, generally the more people learn about it, the less they like it.
Of course, veganism is very far from being an immediate consequence of disliking factory farming. (Similarly, refusing to pay taxes is very far from being an immediate consequence of disliking government policy.)
That’s not obvious to me.
I agree that the more people are exposed to anti-factory-farming propaganda, the more they are influenced by it, but that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
Facepalm was a severe understatement, this quote is a direct ticket to the loony bin. I recommend poking your head out of the bubble once in a while—it’s a whole world out there. For example, some horrible terrible no-good people—like me—consider factory farming to be an efficient way of producing a lot of food at reasonable cost.
This sentence reads approximately as “Literal genocide (e.g. Rwanda) is roughly as severe as using a masculine pronoun with respect to a nonspecific person, but with an even larger scope”.
The steeliest steelman that I can come up with is that you’re utterly out of touch with the Normies.
I sympathize with your feeling of alienation at the comment, and thanks for offering this perspective that seems outlandish to me. I don’t think I agree with you re who the ‘normies’ are, but I suspect that this may not be a fruitful thing to even argue about.
Side note: I’m reminded of the discussion here. (It seems tricky to find a good way to point out that other people are presenting their normative views in a way that signals an unfair consensus, without getting into/accused of identify politics or having to throw around words like “loony bin” or fighting over who the ‘normies’ are.)
Yes, we clearly have very different worldviews. I don’t think alienation is the right word here, it’s just that different people think about the world differently and IMHO that’s perfectly fine (to clarify, I mean values and normative statements, not facts). And, of course, you have no obligation at all to do something about it.
Yeah, that part is phrased poorly :-/