Cons: The store might not actually gather one less lobster than usual
This... seems like a pretty big deal, actually. The store still needs the same number of lobsters to serve to customers who order lobster to eat it, so... how exactly would they gather one less lobster than usual? What's the actual plan, here?
That's a good point, and applies to all of them. I think it would be that it encourages people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might just drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good. Should I delete this post or edit it to mention to not do this for this reason?
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
Hello! I'm Justin Portela. I got hired by GWWC to make YouTube videos after AI in Context did such a kickass job.
My channel is using that same cinematic, high-production value beauty to talk about everything in the EA universe that isn't AI.
...
“How long have you been v*g*n?”
This is one of the most common icebreakers at animal protection events. It’s a baseline assumption, and it mostly holds true: if you’re out advocating for animals not to be tortured or abused, realistically these days you are v**n, or close. And it makes for good conversation. It seems fairly safe to assume when you meet strangers.
But this assumption is hurting the movement in a way which we don’t always notice: someone new comes into the sp...
Buying a lobster from a store and setting it free could do more harm than good. This is because you might increase demand to the extent that the supply goes up by more than 1, and it wastes your time.
On a small scale:
Do buy a lobster & save it
Don't buy a lobster & not save it
1 Lobster saved per person
1 Lobster not saved per person
∼1 Lobster captured due to increased demand per person
∼1 Lobster not captured due to increased demand per person
Lobster store gets money
Lobster store doesn't get money
You and other participants lose some time from your days
You and other participants don't lose some time from your days
Also, doing it on a large scale adds another component. It might encourage people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might also drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good.
On a large scale:
Do buy a lobster & save it
Don't buy a lobster & not save it
1 Lobster saved per person
1 Lobster not saved per person
∼1 Lobster captured due to increased demand per person
∼1 Lobster not captured due to increased demand per person
Lobster store gets money
Lobster store doesn't get money
You and other participants lose some time from your days
You and other participants don't lose some time from your days
It might produce a higher view of non-human animals in the public eye
Won't produce a higher view of non-human animals in the public eye
It might build publicity for lobster stores, increasing demand.
It won't build publicity for lobster stores, increasing demand.
This... seems like a pretty big deal, actually. The store still needs the same number of lobsters to serve to customers who order lobster to eat it, so... how exactly would they gather one less lobster than usual? What's the actual plan, here?
That's a good point, and applies to all of them. I think it would be that it encourages people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might just drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good. Should I delete this post or edit it to mention to not do this for this reason?
Maybe edit your post? I don't know, it's really up to you.