Runis

  Imagine that you take a walk in the woods, and you come across a deer - and a wolf. And as the wolf chases after the deer, time suddenly stops for everyone but you, and you are presented with two buttons, and 60 minutes to think through what to do next. Time resumes once one of the buttons are pressed and you are instructed to not leave, and not refrain from choosing, otherwise you'll die and a bomb will explode in the city and presumably harm hundreds of people. So it's really important that a choice is made.   The buttons are presented as such:

  There's a very interesting line of argumentation commonly used by proponents of animal agriculture. It goes something like this:   The argument for (not the worst kind of) meat production

This post is just my current thoughts on anti-natalism, arguments for and against. The proposition of anti-natalism is that bringing someone into existence harms the individual who is born, and that it’s always better for the individual to never have been born. In support of the proposition we have the principle of reducing suffering, in particular the kinds of suffering that isn’t outweighed or cannot be outweighed by positive experiences. That principle is one that I accept, however I am for the time being agnostic about the conclusion that it's always wrong to bring a life into existence.   The asymmetry between suffering and pleasure David Benatar points to an asymmetry between good and bad things, and that we have common intuitions that support this. The asymmetry is that the presence of suffering is bad, and the presence of pleasure is good, for someone who exists. But for someone who doesn't exist, the absence of suffering is good, but the absence of pleasur...

    This article is just a short summary of my stances on various animal issues.   Is it wrong to buy animal products? Yes, though if it's needed for survival or otherwise basic medical reasons, I'm not willing to consider it to be as wrong at least, but then I'd also say the same for humans killing humans. Unpacking why it seems easier to defend harming a non-human for severe medical reasons or survival reasons, mostly boils down to practical social and emotional concerns, but intrinsically I don't see a good reason to let the species make any difference to the matter. The reason it's wrong is that it either A) directly increases demand for animal products, which increases the amount of unjust treatment of animals and the amount of suffering. B) inspires an acceptance of animal products as a commodity when you otherwise could be part of decreasing the acceptance by boycotting their use. Sustaining the acceptance of animal products halts the vegan movement - whic...