Please get some academic rigour in this reading list. This is just a narrow sample of views from people not subject to peer review, who know nothing of ecology, animal behaviour, physiology, psychology, neuroscience... A bunch of well meaning but ignorant philosophers venturing into an area well out of their competence. Philosophy helps us ask questions, it doesn't answer them. There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Dunning-Kruger exemplified. Go do a PhD in a university, get your ideas kicked to bits by people who know things f... (read more)
Are you arguing against any particular finding? What specifically, do you disagree with? Which one of these articles would be rebuked by the academic community as a whole, and why? Until you can answer these questions, I don't really understand your critique.
1
Evan_Gaensbauer
6y
This is meant as an introductory reading list for basic knowledge for effective altruists just learning about reducing wild animal suffering as a field, and want to catch up to speed. While some philosophers have written many of these essays and articles, others have been written by researchers with an academic background in the life sciences. There aren't firm conclusions in this area yet. Nobody is taking RWAS research out of small EA non-profits with limited research experience as better conclusions than academia would produce.
Multiple EA organizations are spending thousands of dollars per year on multiple staff to build bridges to life scientists in academia to transform welfare biology into a genuine academic discipline. These organizations are also comfortable with the fact academic research may quickly overturn many of the tenuous impressions effective altruists have themselves formed of wild animal suffering. I'm confident EAs when contradicted by novel academic research will change their minds. It seems you think we are taking these findings much more seriously than we actually do.
Please get some academic rigour in this reading list. This is just a narrow sample of views from people not subject to peer review, who know nothing of ecology, animal behaviour, physiology, psychology, neuroscience... A bunch of well meaning but ignorant philosophers venturing into an area well out of their competence. Philosophy helps us ask questions, it doesn't answer them. There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Dunning-Kruger exemplified. Go do a PhD in a university, get your ideas kicked to bits by people who know things f... (read more)