Friend of animals :D
For Podcasters, I really like the Hear this idea podcast :3
The parent of this comment shouldn't happen.
see the post footnote:"I looked at the number of people who had marked something as “most valuable,” and then divided by [karma score]^1.5. All of these were marked as most valuable by at least two people.
Just dividing by karma didn’t change the list much, and dividing by karma^2 penalized karma too much. I played with a few other ways of modifying the “underrated-ness” metric, but they didn’t seem better."
+60% on scientific devaluing on poc(true or false) deterring poc from participating.Not sure if overall would be good though. The clearerThinking podcast w/Magnus Carlson say that allowing misinformation to be voiced may be effective at reducing misinformation. Ex. can point out why the view may fall short.
Clarification: is scientific racism something like "there is a scientific paper relating to race and IQ, [discussion on implication]"?
Or maybe both analogies are correct?
Then the question is how can we be like gut bacteria for the AI and not ants?
Or maybe analogies just add more confusion and we should go back to first principles xd
I observed many people(including other Transhumanists) feeling scared when they see the topic of race and IQ being discussed because they want to avoid more atrocities like in the past.
I do understand though that people of the transhumanism crowd generally think of increasing human genetic capabilities as a good thing.
I think they mean well and want to avoid accidently promoting harmful views by speaking with empathy and compassion on the topic
Not a question specifically for OP, but in general what does it mean to speak with rigor and empathy on the topic?
(I think many people not used to thinking with empathy would assume "it would mean every few minutes going on a tangent about an atrocity and clarify that bad thing is bad". I am embarrassed to say that I also have an underdeveloped ability to talk about sensitive views with empathy and am not sure how to do so)
On the part about longtermism, Tobias Leenhart from ProVeg seems to think more on the lines of behaviour change(from whatever reason, health, enviorment, cheaper price of plants(due to welfare reforms for animals)) will make attitude change for animals & wild animals much easier. This makes me think that they would not be in agreement with what you said about "focusing on welfare improvements could end factory farming sooner, but delay abolition for a very long time", but rather think there would be welfare improvements sooner & abolition sooner. What are your thought on that idea?I am in agreement though that attitude change for animals is most important in the longterm.
Heard from this podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/30-tobias-leenaert-on-the-pragmatic-path-to-a-vegan-world/id1465166926?i=1000511558596
First off, I love the name of this post lolol. Did Mr. McLaughlin think of that one because they got me laughin. Want to add some clarity as to what welfarism means as I've heard it:From some I hear welfarism as "supporting of welfare reforms"But from others I hear welfarism as "The welfare of animals matters"(which means at least in principle being open to considering abolitionist solutions - not sure how much this actually occurs)Which one do you mean by welfarism?