Notes
The following text explores, in a speculative manner, the evolutionary question: Did high-intensity affective states, specifically Pain, emerge early in evolutionary history, or did they develop gradually over time?
Note: We are not neuroscientists; our work draws on our evolutionary biology background and our efforts to develop welfare metrics that accurately reflect reality and effectively reduce suffering. We hope these ideas may interest researchers in neuroscience, comparative cognition, and animal welfare science.
This discussion is part of a broader manuscript in progress, focusing on interspecific comparisons of affective capacities—a critical question for advancing animal welfare science and estimating the Welfare Footprint of animal-sourced products.
Key points
Ultimate question: Do primitive sentient organisms experience extreme pain intensities, or fine-grained pain intensity discrimination, or both?
Scientific framing: Pain functions as a biological signalling system that guides behavior by encoding motivational importance. The evolution of Pain signalling —its intensity range and resolution (i.e., the granularity with which differences in Pain intensity can be perceived)— can be viewed as an optimization problem, where neural architectures must balance computational efficiency, survival-driven signal prioritization, and adaptive flexibility.
Mathematical clarification: Resolution is a fundamental requirement for encoding and processing information. Pain varies not only in overall intensity but also in granularity—how finely intensity levels can be distinguished.
Hypothetical Evolutionary Pathways: by analysing affective intensity (low, high) and resolution (low, high) as independent dimensions, we describe four illustrative evolutionary scenarios that provide a structured framework to examine whether primitive sentient organisms can experience Pain of high intensity, nuanced affective intensities, both, or neither.
Introdu
One of the issues that negates growth in the ethical meat market is that it is essentially competing on two fronts. On one front you have people who don't consider the ethics of what they're eating, and on the other end you have people that care so much about animals that they don't eat animals at all.
This means that the market for ethical meat exists in a narrow band between these two groups, and may always struggle to reach critical mass. If, for instance, the ethical market is 10% but 5% of people are vegan, that's half your ethical market gone, meaning you lose many economies of scale, and also you lose an opportunity to grow, because the more concerned people become about animal welfare the more people will also become vegan or vegetarian, in one door, out the other. I'm not suggesting of course that vegans should eat meat in order to bolster the market, just that it's a tricky issue for this reason.
I think the video does a good job of trying to broaden that narrow band, by focusing on animal welfare rather than the body-count of animals. This might be a good approach. I can almost imagine a world where everyone is vegan, but I can much more easily imagine a world where 10% of people are vegan, but where 100% of the meat is ethically grown, which would be an immeasurably better situation than the one we have at present (until of course we consider the environmental impacts). So, although it's a tricky issue, it's worth pursuing.
Are you implying that vegans will not eat lab meat because it is still imitation of flesh which is symbolically bad (or something similar)?
There are probably many vegans who aren't like this.
Perhaps there are many in EA. My prior guess would be that many mainstream vegans feel disgust towards animal flesh itself. I know anecdotally that’s how I felt. Motivated as much by considerations of the sacred and the profane and sentiment as anything else. Already empathetic as a person, I was therefore prone to reactions like that.
This is on top of the marketing nightmare of getting people to accept “unnatural, lab-grown meat.” It reminds me of anti-nuclear environmentalist campaigners. And conservationists, motivated by a pristine wilderness that never existed. Sometimes, it is not a rational thing. Emotions and symbols drive things.
I was excited that they did this and thought it was well produced. The focus on cost cutting feels like a double edged sword: it absolves viewers of responsibility, which makes them more open to the message but also less likely to do anything. I scrolled through the first couple pages of comments and saw a bunch of "corporations are greedy" complaints but couldn't find anyone suggesting a concrete behavioral change (for themselves or others).
I wonder if there's an adjacent version of this which keeps the viewer absolved of responsibility but still has a call to action. Plausible ideas:
In any case, kudos to the Kurzgesagt team for making a video on this which (as of this writing) has 2M+ views!