I just don’t think that saying things like “extremely unlikely” or implying someone hasn’t “thought about [x] reasonably at all” is either productive or particularly accurate when we’re talking about something for which we have very little well-grounded knowledge.
I agree that some amount of extreme uncertainty is appropriate, but this doesn’t mean that no conclusions are therefore insane. If someone was doing estimates that take into account extreme uncertainty, I would be much less upset! Instead the post says things like this:
If we assume very very very conservatively that a day of honey bee life is as unpleasant as a day spent attending a boring lecture, and then multiply by .15 to take into account the fact bees are probably less sentient than people
That is not a position of extreme uncertainty! And I really don’t think there exist any arguments that would collapse this uncertainty in a reasonable way for the OP here, that I just haven’t encountered.
I think a reasonable position on ethical values is extreme uncertainty. This post is not holding that position. It seems to think that it’s a conservative estimate that a day of honey bee life is 15% as bad as a bad human day.
I agree that some amount of extreme uncertainty is appropriate, but this doesn’t mean that no conclusions are therefore insane. If someone was doing estimates that take into account extreme uncertainty, I would be much less upset! Instead the post says things like this:
That is not a position of extreme uncertainty! And I really don’t think there exist any arguments that would collapse this uncertainty in a reasonable way for the OP here, that I just haven’t encountered.
I think a reasonable position on ethical values is extreme uncertainty. This post is not holding that position. It seems to think that it’s a conservative estimate that a day of honey bee life is 15% as bad as a bad human day.