It seems pretty bad to allow people to react to their own comments/posts beyond the initial karma bump of an upvote. It allows users to artificially create the appearance of positive engagement with their posts, which skews initial perceptions and detracts from the truth-seeking goals of the Forum.
I'd be surprised if preventing people from saving starfish from asphyxiating on the beach is the best way to help shellfish even if all the assumptions in this calculation hold. If not, Shrimp Welfare project should probably start the SPFSTSNABWWTSTONAF (stop people from saving these specific neglected animals becuase we want to save those other neglected animals fund).
I'm so glad I found this when I did. I had been filling out the 7 row of a multiplication table, but after 5 steps, I hit a major road block. Deep Thought was exactly what I needed to push through and figure it out.
The whole AGI welfare movement is treating the advance of an animal friendly future as more monolithic than it truly is. I think the future will be weirder than that.
I know of someone who walked out of a city and regretted it whom you might be able to reach. Last I heard they had an Appointment in Samarra, so you can presumably find them there.
This is really discouraging to see. People posting falseclaims with fake evidence distracts from people like you postingtrueclaims in a misleading way, which is totally fine.
I'm so sorry to be the one to break this to you, I have already written an entire book about why this is simply not possible. Have you considered asking people working impactful careers to only spend 800 hours on it?
You're getting at the heart of my argument here. Even if we assume that expanding land use is not just positive but a central moral target, it is still highly implausible that the best way to use land requires us to also torture animals on that land. I agree that it is absurd to converge on factory farming as the best answer, especially when even "all of the work involved in land development in factory farming but nothing else" would be cheaper.
I would like to see those who hold the view of land use as a central moral target (such as @Vasco Grilo🔸) to explore what the best pathway is. And I don't think it is remotely justifiable to derail discussions of farmed animal welfare work with nematode arguments until there is a robust case not just for its effect on nematode welfare, but against any other plausible way to increase land use.
If you ever need a classic rap song to communicate your desire to be more influential in animal philanthropy, just say:
I wish I was a little bit taller
I wish I was a Bollard
It seems pretty bad to allow people to react to their own comments/posts beyond the initial karma bump of an upvote. It allows users to artificially create the appearance of positive engagement with their posts, which skews initial perceptions and detracts from the truth-seeking goals of the Forum.
I'd be surprised if preventing people from saving starfish from asphyxiating on the beach is the best way to help shellfish even if all the assumptions in this calculation hold. If not, Shrimp Welfare project should probably start the SPFSTSNABWWTSTONAF (stop people from saving these specific neglected animals becuase we want to save those other neglected animals fund).
D:
I'm so glad I found this when I did. I had been filling out the 7 row of a multiplication table, but after 5 steps, I hit a major road block. Deep Thought was exactly what I needed to push through and figure it out.
Thank you so much!
The whole AGI welfare movement is treating the advance of an animal friendly future as more monolithic than it truly is. I think the future will be weirder than that.
I know of someone who walked out of a city and regretted it whom you might be able to reach. Last I heard they had an Appointment in Samarra, so you can presumably find them there.
This is really discouraging to see. People posting false claims with fake evidence distracts from people like you posting true claims in a misleading way, which is totally fine.
I'm so sorry to be the one to break this to you, I have already written an entire book about why this is simply not possible. Have you considered asking people working impactful careers to only spend 800 hours on it?
You're getting at the heart of my argument here. Even if we assume that expanding land use is not just positive but a central moral target, it is still highly implausible that the best way to use land requires us to also torture animals on that land. I agree that it is absurd to converge on factory farming as the best answer, especially when even "all of the work involved in land development in factory farming but nothing else" would be cheaper.
I would like to see those who hold the view of land use as a central moral target (such as @Vasco Grilo🔸) to explore what the best pathway is. And I don't think it is remotely justifiable to derail discussions of farmed animal welfare work with nematode arguments until there is a robust case not just for its effect on nematode welfare, but against any other plausible way to increase land use.