Alaska snow crab season canceled after disappearance of an estimated 1B crabs

A reality where the alternatives are far worse.

No, the others can't "continue as they have been" if things change.

Most of those countries "not causing a problem" accept a great deal of food and fuel imports from the "over-contributors", never mind goods, services and financing. They literally cannot support their populations without these imports. If the global economy comes screeching to a halt as major players scale down and just see to their own needs, many of the minor players literally starve in the dark. Just look at the impact of the Ukraine/Russia wheat supply disruption on North Africa/The middle east for a tiny example of what a global disruption would look like.

The current model can be made sustainable with time, proper policy and technological advancement. If for whatever reason we can't manage that, we're screwed.

People say "growth can't continue to infinity", and technically they're right. Problem is we know what no economic growth looks like. It's some form of feudalism, where powerful entities hoard all the wealth and we all rent the rest. The only attempt at something other than that was 20th century communism, and that... didn't work to say the least. So either we make history by creating the first ever successful re-distributive economic system, on a global scale, or we keep doing what we've been doing for centuries and hope technology and enlightened democracy can save the day.

My vote's on the latter, at least it has an overall positive track record.

Something people don't seem to understand is that when it comes to externalities there are economic activities whose benefits exceed the downsides of the negative externality and activities whose negative externality by far exceeds its benefits. The latter makes everyone poorer except the person doing it but that person isn't even getting a reward that is worth the effort, he is just not losing out.

If you internalize a negative externality everyone will get wealthier simply because people only ruin the environment when it is actually worth it. People always say how fossil fuels were necessary for the industrial revolution but that only means that its benefits exceeded its negative externalities and therefore a pigovian tax would actually help it.

That would be rather logical now, wouldn't it? However, I'm afraid that when someone says that we must reduce our dependence on petrochemicals I must mention that there are things for which we have no replacement for petrochemicals. I must argue that eliminating petrochemical use is impossible any time you ask to reduce use. I don't make the rules.

Would you like to hear about how some Americans need a truck to do work too? Just go ahead and mention that we should aim to use smaller vehicles.

> The ethical problem is in causing unnecessary harm to others.

What is a strong definition or test for necessity?

> My personal take on it is that we have a responsibility insofar as we have power over the matter.

Our ability to have power and therefore responsibility is a result of incredible amounts of time undergoing evolution that resulted in us being the beings we are today. Our interventions could rob other creatures from achieving similar levels of power, responsibility, or understanding. How does that fit in with your ethics beliefs? What if we created interventions to accelerate other animals abilities to "think empathetically." Do we have a responsibility to do that? What if it requires a natural process (applying natural selection to animals that do not display empathy/do not have empathy genes).

> If hypothetically we did have a way to end all suffering on Earth without fucking it all up, I don't see how we couldn't feel an ethical responsibility to do so.

What about the flip side, what if we could cause pleasure. Do we have a responsibility to cause pleasure?

What if we started taking animals and hooking electrodes up to the pleasure centers of their brains, and turned the machine on for the rest of their natural lives, while feeding them ethical nutrients via IV. Is that a philosophically good thing to do?

If there are no beings, there is no suffering. That's an easy answer. If we had a theoretical hyper-heroin that would function against all animals, we could drug every creature into a happy ending. Is that a philosophically satisfying intervention?

> I don't think it is an appeal to nature fallacy because I have no implicit axiom that "what is natural is good." The statement I made seems, to me, closer to "what is natural is." without a strong opinion on it's level of good.

I did take your first comment, and this one, to be implicit, if not explicit, arguments that because these things happen in nature, it is okay (good) for us to do it as well. Apologies if that's not what you're saying!

>Your argument is that we should re-write the the laws governing our reality, something we have only recently become able to accomplish, and something we can't necessarily predict the consequences of.

My argument is simply that we should have compassion for others, humans and all other sentient beings included, and work to relieve suffering as much as we can. I think this is not too far off from how most people feel about humanity, but that we are only (historically recently) beginning to apply this way of thinking on a larger scale to the rest of the living beings who share this world with us.

>In a discussion of ethics (and physics) our bodies desire amino acids that exist in animal flesh and will provide us with reproductive advantage for acquiring them, something we (up until recently) must have killed animals to acquire. If you want to have an ethical discussion (I do because they're interesting) the physics of the matter must be spoken to or accounted for.

Sure, but I think you are agreeing here that as of recently, we no longer must kill these animals to acquire these nutrients?

>Pain is a physical concept. Social relationships are a physical concept (there are physical forces governing these relationships in our brains). There's research that plants can communicate damage or danger, is that a pain analogue? Is the fundemental ethical issue suffereing, suffering of those left behind (in social creatures), "theft" of future?

Whether or not plants can react to stimuli and communicate amongst themselves is a different question from whether they are sentient. For example, we have billions of cells within our body, each reacting to their environments, communicating with one another, being born and dying in countless numbers as we sit here typing. Are we conscious of any of that?

Consciousness in my mind is much like sight, it's not a given that every living organism can see, you have to have the biological structures whose explicit purpose is to create that sensation of sight. Take away the eyes, sever the nerves, or take an organism who has never evolved those eyes or optic nerves (or their analogues), and there is no sight.

Consciousness beyond not being a given for all living things, also seems extremely fragile. Administering only a few mg of a drug to a person will eliminate their consciousness during e.g. general anesthesia. Only a relatively small amount of damage to the brain can similarly end it, even though we still have all those structures that consciousness requires and they're largely still functional!

So in short, I don't think we see any sort of way that plants could actually be conscious, as we understand consciousness, they just don't have the necessary parts. Further, even if each blade of grass were as fully conscious as a human being, it would still be more ethical to consume plants directly rather than animals, because for every 10 calories of plants we feed to a cow, we get roughly 1 calorie out. So we are killing roughly 10x as many plants by eating a steak, calorie for calorie, than we are by eating those plants directly.

This is without even accounting for all the plant, animal, and human life destroyed in the act of clearing rainforests to create more grazing area for cattle, and to grow more soy (of which over 80% of global production goes to animal feed) to feed those cattle.

And further without accounting for all the plant, animal, and human life that is being and will be destroyed by climate change, to which the raising of those cows is a major contributor.

The fundamental ethical issue is in causing unnecessary suffering. We do not have to torture others to survive, so why would we, just because it feels good? That seems like a clear ethical issue.

>Then there's the equally (to me) compelling question that an animal would eat me if it could, from an ethical point of view, I think that gives me a right to eat it. Why does that fail under your reasoning system?

I mean, if a rapist would rape you, does that give you the right to rape them?

> I am not clear on what you think we are responsible for

The consequences of our actions, especially as far as our actions cause other sentient beings, including humans and animals, to suffer and die.

> If we are responsible to minimize total suffering in a pragmatic way, why is it then not our responsibility to wipe out other creatures that cause torturous deaths?

This question is probably a good test of utilitarianism. The creatures that cause by far the most suffering and death on Earth are humans, but I would not be comfortable wiping out humans, any more so that I would be comfortable wiping out any other sentient species.

Would you flip the lever on a trolley to run over 10,000 people to save 100,000? In the abstract someone might easily say yes, that it's the reasonable course of action to minimize the amount of suffering and death, which must unavoidably happen in one way or another.

While I don't have a perfect answer to that, I can say with certainty that in the non-hypothetical we can dramatically reduce the amount of suffering that we cause to other people and animals, and in so doing not only not have to kill ourselves, but actually benefit our environment, and by extension all of humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom simultaneously. It's a win win for all, the only cost would be to our palate pleasure, a fleeting sensation that we enjoy for only a few minutes a day.

When I think about these problems it seems to fall into this uncomfortable category where conclusions more or less depend on your perceived meaning of life and corresponding priorities.

You can look at the universe as this absurd physical machine just banging away where the suffering of another sentient being simply “is”. Yes, of course it is.

You can also look at the same absurd universe and realize that, to some degree, consciousness seems to confer some amount of agency. You get to decide what matters to you. You get to decide on what life means to you. As you go, you can construct your part of the universe to some extent.

For me, I see it as meaningful to reduce suffering as much as it’s practicable. I recognize that death, suffering, and the messy reality of nature is part of what generated my own life. I recognize that I can’t end that cycle, nor should I because most of nature relies on it.

However, within the realm of the universe that I have this agency, I can choose to try to reduce that suffering. I can try to make this corner of the universe slightly less painful. I can respect and admire the bizarre miracle of sentience, and do my best to sustain it rather than destroy it.

Perhaps that’s meaningless. I don’t have any amazing expectations.

Similar to climate change though, I ask myself “what is the harm in taking action”? What do I lose by caring enough to change?

The answer has been a dramatic improvement to my well-being, and much more peaceful and content outlook on nature and life.

It doesn’t make sense for everyone, but I urge people to consider that complacency with the natural order of things isn’t necessary or inherently wise. Eating celery is as natural as killing a deer or as eating a lentil or catching a fish. Some of these end lives we recognize as very similar to our own, others seem less destructive. We can choose to do less harm, as we wouldn’t want harm done to us. Perhaps that’s worth something. Perhaps it’s not.

If you're talking about it from an animal rights angle, even animals raised on small idyllic farms have their throats slit at an early age. Would we want our throats slit?

Would we want to be funneled down a chute with our family members, watching them disappear behind a metal sheet and then get shot in the head one by one in front of us, until our turn comes?

If you're talking about it from an environmental angle, moving from CAFOs to grass-feeding small farms for e.g. cattle would necessitate more land, the animals would grow more slowly, they would produce more methane due to digestion of grass vs feed, we would subsequently have to raise larger herds of animals to supply the same amount of meat, and all of this would actually result in a worse impact on the environment.

Factory farming is actually largely the result of the industry optimizing animal rearing to produce the most meat for the least amount of inputs.

If you look at the statistics, in the developed world factory farming makes up about 98% of all meat produced commercially.

Before I stopped eating meat, I thought the meat I was buying came from good sources. The farms were nearby, conditions seemed okay, it was organic, etc.

The reality is that all of these animals don’t have good lives. They don’t eat well. They live in bizarre conditions. The vast majority (nearly 100%, again) end up in feed lots if they’re cattle. They’re fattened and then killed essentially as adolescents of their species. Forcefully inseminated, taken from their mothers, killed as babies for veal, fed absurd amounts of antibiotics in some cases, many die in their pens, etc.

This is normal. It’s how we farm. Industry is good at putting a smile on it, talking about values and generations of farmers and doing it right… But these animals are bred and killed for cash, no one gives much of a shit about them, and it’s all very grim.

The excelsior pig farm near me in Abbotsford, British Columbia is a great example. This farm wasn’t exceptional. It’s just another pig farm. But pigs were dead in their pens, cannibalizing each other, dead in trash bins, dead in dumpsters, covered in feces, sores, and wounds.

You’re not going to get rid of that. Meat as we know it doesn’t exist without this race to the bottom circus of torture. People are eager to believe their meat habit isn’t based around this or that something better is around the corner, but it’s simply not the case. These animals are here for profit, yet no one is willing to pay enough for them to live comfortably. So they will suffer.

Regarding plants, I replied elsewhere in this thread as to why I think they aren't conscious, but even if each kernel of corn were as fully conscious as a human being, it would still be more ethical to eat them directly than to feed that corn to a cow and then eat it. The reason for this is because for every 10 calories of plant matter we feed to a cow, we get ~1 calorie of meat out of it. So by eating the crops directly we are killing 90% fewer plants, without even taking into account all the plant, animal, and human life being destroyed in clearing rainforests for cattle. Without even accounting for all the plant, animal, and human life that is being and will be destroyed by the climate change to which the rearing of these cattle is a major contributor.

Otherwise I appreciate that you can see that it's all largely arbitrary, self-serving, and this way of thinking is what has lead to every other atrocity in our history. I think we are capable of being better.

"Othering" is itself an evolutionary development. Innate human altruism is deeply parochial, which comes out in many experiments, but especially those with young children. And it makes perfect sense when you think about it from the "selfish gene" perspective. We also know from observation that genocidal wars are something that other apes practice occasionally, so "othering" within species is likely something that predates our speciation as humans.

Counting macronutrients is a pretty poor way of comparing foods. They have different amino acids, fats, trace minerals, and vitamins, and are digested differently in the body. They don't even smell the same or behave the same when cooking.

This isn't some kind of pro-meat screed, either. It's just not true that they are equivalent culinarily or nutritionally. They are a pretty good approximation of beef, but they're not the same.

If the Whoppers seem the same, it's because Whoppers are junk food, and Impossible meat is kind of just vegan junk food.

Among the phytoestrogens, it seems like hops are exceptionally potent and disruptive to human hormones as well. This is a bit ironic because it’s a common ingredient in beer, another thing sometimes associated with masculinity.

Violence takes many forms, from gentle to deadly.

What the key difference here is, between a democracy and a totalitarian government, is just who decides when violence will be employed.

In democratic states, violence is allowed by specific actors, such as the police, in specific situations, such as when other forms of mediation fail, under specific guidelines.

This means that democracy attempts to replace the mob (anarchy), and the totalitarian (no law, power vested in one), with a more structured form of violence.

Note that absolutely no system will work perfectly, at all. There will be flaws, issues, but from where I sit, most western democracies do a fairly good job of this.

That's because the truth is, violence absolutely will occur, no matter what, no matter the form of government (or lack of) in place. Humanity always has individuals which will prey upon itself, and the only response in such cases is violence of some sort.

So how do you want your violence?

The anarchistic mob? Emotionally run, able to fly out of control, meting out punishment on emotion and adrenaline?

The totalitarian, deciding rule of law on whim, then meting out punishment in any way chosen?

Or the democratic approach, with laws debated, considered, and meted out by democratic choice, in a controlled way?

Again, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best we currently have.

And yes, it is violent at times, for humanity is violent at times.

We always have been, and will be, else we will no longer be human.

You may be thinking, "No! Democracy let thing $x happen to person/group $y. It has failed us!"

The thing is, most democracies attempt to constantly improve upon this.

Take the US, for example. Compare racism in the 50s, to now.

If you think racism, and police brutality connected to it is bad now, your head would spin, and probably explode, if transported to the 50s.

What you really need to consider, is what happens under alternative forms of governement.

Do you believe a totalitarian would do better at the above? Anarchy?

Hardly.

So how do you want your violence?

Pick carefully.

If you pick democracy, as I have, then the next step is to work on improving how that violence is meted out.

Help steer it, to make it as fair, as gentle as possible.

I'm going off the 2021 numbers, 667 pounds/capita/annum. I'll confess I was too lazy to pull up the calculator app and get ~18% increase. This wasn't due to a conscious consumer boycott, people just decided that drinking milk is kinda gross (see: McPoyle)

A better example to illustrate your point might be the grape boycotts of the 1960s, when Cesar Chavez/Dolores de la Huerta/UFW & company successfully appealed to the American working man to boycott (specifically California) grapes until the growers agreed to basic labor rights.

In any case, my point is that industry/the powers that be aren't actually to blame, as evidenced by their readiness to cancel the season. As this is most likely caused by climate change, we should be boycotting the fossil fuel industry, if only we could

Your crazy if you think the government isn't going to just piss that money away. Its already at ~$.50 a gallon with federal and state taxes. And the oil companies will just stop producing to lower supply and inflate the price. More taxes are going to hurt the individual , companies have enough money to get around it. No, we need a revolution.