My biggest concern about EA thus far has been addressed to an extent by the week 7 readings!
While it does reassure me that the average EA's writing and work are a lot more "maximizy" than their actions, it does add further clarity and a closer semblance to objectivity to assess potential blindsides while defining the maximand. This again ties in with how we individually compartmentalize our independent beliefs, and analyze how it ties in with and/or contradicts what we see as solid evidence.
It also heartened me to see that "EA beyond the west" is an identified area as well. Our collective efforts to do good can be nuanced with the diversification of perspectives we have.
One question of mine that still persists is lies in the fundamental of EA goals. Particularly, the (very valid) aim of EA to reduce suffering - a phenomenon that is subjective, nuanced and quite often a matter of perspective.
A good ancestor not only wants to protect their lineage from financial and livelihood risks, they also take into consideration the world they're building for their future generations to live in.
A good ancestor doesn't raze forests in the name of industrialization with the intent of growing the financial corpus they'll pass on to down their inheritors, instead they consider that the resulting climate change might just make the world unlivable no matter how wealthy one is.
A good ancestor doesn't think of their transactional life as a zero-sum game, instead they look at ways to symbiotically grow as a civilization to ensure the optimal future for the collective.
A good ancestor understands that no amount of resource appropriation can change the fact that each of us a re a singular human being in society, and nothing more or nothing less.
A good ancestor must respect the lives around them before striving for lives not yet born.
I write to you in alarm to ask you - why!? Why have you ordered for the culling of your community animals with whom your people have had a symbiotic relationship with? The same animals who benefit you in ways that are tangible to you? And why haven't you considered the implications of your actions that you're blindsided to that could backfire on your people? I am from a couple of hundred years into the future, and even the most sophisticated today aren't anywhere close to figuring out nature properly.
I implore you to reflect on the following points:
Animals too feel pain.
Animals were born on this planet with you, they have the same right to live as you do.
You are teaching your people's children cruelty - what if they learn to translate that into cruelty towards humans?
These animals have much stronger instincts than we do - what if there's an earthquake or a tsunami, but no dogs to bark their early warnings?
The animals you've branded as "nuisances" contribute to your ecosystem in ways you are not aware of. In fact, a number of decades into your future, the municipality in Surat, India, will cull a few thousand stray dogs in their city. What happened in the following months harrows the heart - thousands of dogs mercilessly slaughtered for no reason other than hate, the explosion of the snake population that proved to be much harder to manage, and the explosion of the rodent population triggered an epidemic that took a few hundred human lives, spreading across 5 states, and eventually going down in history as the infamous Surat Plague of 1992.
I am not aware of the reason you chose to go ahead with this cruel execution. If it was for keeping your community safe, that's a bad step - other animals who are probably going to pose a bigger threat will replace them. If it was for hygiene - think of the worse hygiene practices that badly affect your children that you willfully overlook. If it is to impress visiting dignitaries - what if they're pro-animals?
You may not know this yet, but a long time ago, giant monstrous creatures called the dinosaurs once walked the planet and were wiped out in a flash by means of natural disasters. If these magnanimous creatures that sound like they're straight out of a fantasy could be brushed off by nature so nonchalantly - so can you.
We as a species are neither more powerful than the planet we live on, nor a greater life than the others. We may have this false sense of supremacy, but in suffering - all animals are equal.
My biggest concern about EA thus far has been addressed to an extent by the week 7 readings!
While it does reassure me that the average EA's writing and work are a lot more "maximizy" than their actions, it does add further clarity and a closer semblance to objectivity to assess potential blindsides while defining the maximand. This again ties in with how we individually compartmentalize our independent beliefs, and analyze how it ties in with and/or contradicts what we see as solid evidence.
It also heartened me to see that "EA beyond the west" is an identified area as well. Our collective efforts to do good can be nuanced with the diversification of perspectives we have.
One question of mine that still persists is lies in the fundamental of EA goals. Particularly, the (very valid) aim of EA to reduce suffering - a phenomenon that is subjective, nuanced and quite often a matter of perspective.
A good ancestor not only wants to protect their lineage from financial and livelihood risks, they also take into consideration the world they're building for their future generations to live in.
A good ancestor doesn't raze forests in the name of industrialization with the intent of growing the financial corpus they'll pass on to down their inheritors, instead they consider that the resulting climate change might just make the world unlivable no matter how wealthy one is.
A good ancestor doesn't think of their transactional life as a zero-sum game, instead they look at ways to symbiotically grow as a civilization to ensure the optimal future for the collective.
A good ancestor understands that no amount of resource appropriation can change the fact that each of us a re a singular human being in society, and nothing more or nothing less.
A good ancestor must respect the lives around them before striving for lives not yet born.
Dear Animal Culler,
I write to you in alarm to ask you - why!? Why have you ordered for the culling of your community animals with whom your people have had a symbiotic relationship with? The same animals who benefit you in ways that are tangible to you? And why haven't you considered the implications of your actions that you're blindsided to that could backfire on your people? I am from a couple of hundred years into the future, and even the most sophisticated today aren't anywhere close to figuring out nature properly.
I implore you to reflect on the following points:
I am not aware of the reason you chose to go ahead with this cruel execution. If it was for keeping your community safe, that's a bad step - other animals who are probably going to pose a bigger threat will replace them. If it was for hygiene - think of the worse hygiene practices that badly affect your children that you willfully overlook. If it is to impress visiting dignitaries - what if they're pro-animals?
You may not know this yet, but a long time ago, giant monstrous creatures called the dinosaurs once walked the planet and were wiped out in a flash by means of natural disasters. If these magnanimous creatures that sound like they're straight out of a fantasy could be brushed off by nature so nonchalantly - so can you.
We as a species are neither more powerful than the planet we live on, nor a greater life than the others. We may have this false sense of supremacy, but in suffering - all animals are equal.
Kind regards,
Rakesh