I think you make some interesting points here, but there are two points I would disagree with:
First is “The Shrimp Welfare Project wants shrimp to suffer so they can have a new problem to solve.” This claim is made with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You don’t even argue for why it might be the case, and show no curiosity about other explanations for this. They claim to disagree with you, so clearly they have ulterior, malicious motives. (I would say knowingly creating a charity that doesn’t solve a real problem, just to be able to say you’re solving a new problem, is quite unethical!) Why is it so hard to believe the people who founded SWP did so with the intent of reducing as much suffering as possible, and just happened to be incorrect? What makes you completely dismiss this hypothesis so much that it isn’t even worth mentioning the alternative in your article?
Second is “At best, a shrimp sentium would encode only the most surface-level sensory experience: raw sensation without context, meaning, or emotional depth. Think of the mildest irritation you can imagine, like the persistent squeak of a shopping cart wheel at Walmart.”
I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. When I imagine a migraine, the worst pain I personally have ever experienced (being a rather fortunate individual) it doesn’t seem to me like the reason I am suffering is because of the context, meaning, or emotional depth of my pain. I’m suffering because it hurts. A lot. It doesn’t seem that complicated. It seems like it would be much more principled, using your analysis, to treat 860,000 shrimps freezing to death as suffering equivalent to one human experiencing the sensation of freezing to death, not experiencing mild irritation. I say “experiencing the sensation of” because things like being aware of one’s own mortality does seem like a thing that’s out of reach of a shrimp. So it’s not equivalent to a human actually dying, in my view, but freezing to death is likely still quite unpleasant, and not something I’d do for fun, and I’d much rather experience a squeaky wheel at Walmart even if I was fine as soon as I lost consciousness and had no chance of mental trauma from the incident, which I think still matches the shrimp equivalence.
What I still think makes this article interesting is that 550 humans experiencing the sensation of freezing to death across twenty minutes is bad, but not as bad as even one human death, which could be prevented by orders of magnitude less cost than a shrimp stunner. So even despite this article’s flaws I still think it’s a good article on net and worth engaging with for a proponent of shrimp welfare.
While a reply isn’t required, if you are going to engage with only one of these points, I would prefer it be the first one even though I wrote a lot less about it. The second point doesn’t actually change the overall conclusion very much imo, but the first point is generally quite confusing to me, and makes me less confident about rest of the article given the quality of reasoning in that claim.
I first want to respond to the mention of my statement that the Shrimp Welfare Project want shrimp to suffer. I did not want to frame my piece as a direct attack on the project, and rather as an exploration of shrimp consciousness and suffering capabilities, as this aligns more with my interests. I wrote my first draft without closely reading their output, from first principles and my own research. I independently read much of the literature on shrimp brains, and have read much of what has been published in the neuroscience of consciousness over the last year. What surprised me, when I started reading the rethink priorities and SWP literature, was that they had read the same papers as I had, and had chosen to misrepresent a lot of the information. They mention findings in crabs, insects, worms and fundamentally different organisms as evidence for shrimp sentience. They stack probabilities based on their own assumptions on top of each other, and have made the justifications for these probabilities and insights unreasonably difficult to find. Their argument against neuron counts as a proxy for suffering and sentience weakens their argument for shrimp sentience, as it mentions factors like neuron density, which is lesser in shrimp. This argument is, however, presented as a counterpoint to certain critiques of the project.
“It just intuitively seems like they are.” This is proposed as a rebuttal for critiques of the shrimp welfare project, not very convincing to me, yet they claim that those who don’t support them are “irrational, evil or both”. I find that making that claim with sparse, scattered and unclear evidence is not great, and paints anyone who opposes their views as as flawed person.
I would prefer if they had purely appealed to emotion and provided philosophical arguments, but bringing in empirical research, and picking and choosing the evidence that supports their argument weakens it in my view.
As for your second argument, I would like to point you to my mention of the ACC. Pain is processed in your brain, not in the pain receptors. You probably evolved the ability to suffer, and I doubt it is an inherent component of consciousness or matter. Your personal experience with migraines does not relate to shrimp as your nervous system evolved independently. I understand the desire to empathise with shrimp, and to imagine them freezing to death and suffering, but they can’t experience anything remotely similar to your migraine.
My arguments were meant to compound, not to be taken independently. Shrimp are probably not conscious, they probably can’t feel pain, and even if they could it would be an extremely basic and surface level unpleasantness. There are millions of neurons in your brain encoding negative signals when the shopping cart is squeaky, orders of magnitude more than a shrimp freezing to death. What would make the experience of their neurons stronger or more morally relevant? I personally believe that, if shrimp can experience, it would just be the basic substrate of experience with no valence at all.
In my perspective, I was not attacking anyone but was mentioning something inherent to humans, however rational they may be. When you want to believe something, it is very easy to convince yourself that it true.
If the above is true, I think this is really good information that would have been very nice to have cited within the article. That would make me a lot more skeptical of SWP and of their conclusions, and it’d be great to see links for these examples if you could provide them.
Especially this paragraph:
“It just intuitively seems like they are.” This is proposed as a rebuttal for critiques of the shrimp welfare project, not very convincing to me, yet they claim that those who don’t support them are “irrational, evil or both”. I find that making that claim with sparse, scattered and unclear evidence is not great, and paints anyone who opposes their views as as flawed person.
I agree with the value claims in this paragraph completely, so if you have sources for those quotes I think that would be very persuasive to a lot of us here on this site, and it might even be worth a labelled edit to the main post.
I think you make some interesting points here, but there are two points I would disagree with:
First is “The Shrimp Welfare Project wants shrimp to suffer so they can have a new problem to solve.” This claim is made with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You don’t even argue for why it might be the case, and show no curiosity about other explanations for this. They claim to disagree with you, so clearly they have ulterior, malicious motives. (I would say knowingly creating a charity that doesn’t solve a real problem, just to be able to say you’re solving a new problem, is quite unethical!) Why is it so hard to believe the people who founded SWP did so with the intent of reducing as much suffering as possible, and just happened to be incorrect? What makes you completely dismiss this hypothesis so much that it isn’t even worth mentioning the alternative in your article?
Second is “At best, a shrimp sentium would encode only the most surface-level sensory experience: raw sensation without context, meaning, or emotional depth. Think of the mildest irritation you can imagine, like the persistent squeak of a shopping cart wheel at Walmart.”
I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. When I imagine a migraine, the worst pain I personally have ever experienced (being a rather fortunate individual) it doesn’t seem to me like the reason I am suffering is because of the context, meaning, or emotional depth of my pain. I’m suffering because it hurts. A lot. It doesn’t seem that complicated. It seems like it would be much more principled, using your analysis, to treat 860,000 shrimps freezing to death as suffering equivalent to one human experiencing the sensation of freezing to death, not experiencing mild irritation. I say “experiencing the sensation of” because things like being aware of one’s own mortality does seem like a thing that’s out of reach of a shrimp. So it’s not equivalent to a human actually dying, in my view, but freezing to death is likely still quite unpleasant, and not something I’d do for fun, and I’d much rather experience a squeaky wheel at Walmart even if I was fine as soon as I lost consciousness and had no chance of mental trauma from the incident, which I think still matches the shrimp equivalence.
What I still think makes this article interesting is that 550 humans experiencing the sensation of freezing to death across twenty minutes is bad, but not as bad as even one human death, which could be prevented by orders of magnitude less cost than a shrimp stunner. So even despite this article’s flaws I still think it’s a good article on net and worth engaging with for a proponent of shrimp welfare.
While a reply isn’t required, if you are going to engage with only one of these points, I would prefer it be the first one even though I wrote a lot less about it. The second point doesn’t actually change the overall conclusion very much imo, but the first point is generally quite confusing to me, and makes me less confident about rest of the article given the quality of reasoning in that claim.
I first want to respond to the mention of my statement that the Shrimp Welfare Project want shrimp to suffer. I did not want to frame my piece as a direct attack on the project, and rather as an exploration of shrimp consciousness and suffering capabilities, as this aligns more with my interests. I wrote my first draft without closely reading their output, from first principles and my own research. I independently read much of the literature on shrimp brains, and have read much of what has been published in the neuroscience of consciousness over the last year. What surprised me, when I started reading the rethink priorities and SWP literature, was that they had read the same papers as I had, and had chosen to misrepresent a lot of the information. They mention findings in crabs, insects, worms and fundamentally different organisms as evidence for shrimp sentience. They stack probabilities based on their own assumptions on top of each other, and have made the justifications for these probabilities and insights unreasonably difficult to find. Their argument against neuron counts as a proxy for suffering and sentience weakens their argument for shrimp sentience, as it mentions factors like neuron density, which is lesser in shrimp. This argument is, however, presented as a counterpoint to certain critiques of the project.
“It just intuitively seems like they are.” This is proposed as a rebuttal for critiques of the shrimp welfare project, not very convincing to me, yet they claim that those who don’t support them are “irrational, evil or both”. I find that making that claim with sparse, scattered and unclear evidence is not great, and paints anyone who opposes their views as as flawed person.
I would prefer if they had purely appealed to emotion and provided philosophical arguments, but bringing in empirical research, and picking and choosing the evidence that supports their argument weakens it in my view.
As for your second argument, I would like to point you to my mention of the ACC. Pain is processed in your brain, not in the pain receptors. You probably evolved the ability to suffer, and I doubt it is an inherent component of consciousness or matter. Your personal experience with migraines does not relate to shrimp as your nervous system evolved independently. I understand the desire to empathise with shrimp, and to imagine them freezing to death and suffering, but they can’t experience anything remotely similar to your migraine.
My arguments were meant to compound, not to be taken independently. Shrimp are probably not conscious, they probably can’t feel pain, and even if they could it would be an extremely basic and surface level unpleasantness. There are millions of neurons in your brain encoding negative signals when the shopping cart is squeaky, orders of magnitude more than a shrimp freezing to death. What would make the experience of their neurons stronger or more morally relevant? I personally believe that, if shrimp can experience, it would just be the basic substrate of experience with no valence at all.
In my perspective, I was not attacking anyone but was mentioning something inherent to humans, however rational they may be. When you want to believe something, it is very easy to convince yourself that it true.
I realize it was a mistake to phrase it that way.
If the above is true, I think this is really good information that would have been very nice to have cited within the article. That would make me a lot more skeptical of SWP and of their conclusions, and it’d be great to see links for these examples if you could provide them.
Especially this paragraph:
“It just intuitively seems like they are.” This is proposed as a rebuttal for critiques of the shrimp welfare project, not very convincing to me, yet they claim that those who don’t support them are “irrational, evil or both”. I find that making that claim with sparse, scattered and unclear evidence is not great, and paints anyone who opposes their views as as flawed person.
I agree with the value claims in this paragraph completely, so if you have sources for those quotes I think that would be very persuasive to a lot of us here on this site, and it might even be worth a labelled edit to the main post.