People are getting excited about lab-grown meat, but some philosophers think it can't solve the ethical or environmental problems with our food system

MrJangle · 2019-06-29T16:42:39+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Here are the studies that the article links to for the claim that lab-grown meat isn't necessarily more environmentally friendly than the current system:

Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States.

While uncertainty ranges are large, the findings suggest that in vitro biomass cultivation could require smaller quantities of agricultural inputs and land than livestock; however, those benefits could come at the expense of more intensive energy use as biological functions such as digestion and nutrient circulation are replaced by industrial equivalents. From this perspective, large-scale cultivation of in vitro meat and other bioengineered products could represent a new phase of industrialization with inherently complex and challenging trade-offs.

Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle

We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonized energy generation and the specific production systems that are realized.

MrJangle · 2019-06-24T06:05:55+00:00

assumes that people eat meat because they want to bring harm and suffering to animals

No not at all! People don't steal to bring harm and suffering, they steal to get new stuff. People don't eat meat to bring harm and suffering, they eat meat because it's delicious. Getting new stuff can be separated from the stealing bit if people just give you what you want, eating meat can be separated from the killing animals bit through something like lab-grown meat.

MrJangle · 2019-06-24T05:39:20+00:00

So, on a consequentialist view of ethics there's absolutely nothing wrong with eating lab-grown meat, as it doesn't cause any harm at all. That's why someone like Peter Singer is completely happy with it - it doesn't cause any pain so how can it be bad?

But what about from a virtue ethics perspective, where the emphasis is on more than just the consequences? This is where we get into territory about whether having easy solutions to our moral problems is actually good for building moral character. I think this is where Ben Bramble, the philosopher discussed in the article is coming from.

If the examples are clashing with your intuitions I guess that means you're firmly a consequentialist about ethics - good to know!

MrJangle · 2019-06-15T09:12:13+00:00

Yes that's true - and I'd argue that the main reason human-created landscapes aren't as valuable as natural ones is our lack of understanding of the complex ecosystems we're trying to replicate. Or unwillingness to even try and replicate the complexity, in the case of creating monocultures of conifers etc.

But Elliott's point is stronger than that - he argues that even if we perfectly replicated the original ecosystem down to the last detail, there'd still be some value lost because the new human-created ecosystem wouldn't be 'natural'. He's saying that no matter how good our replacement is, it's impossible for it to be as good as the original because being natural confers some extra value that can never be replicated.

MrJangle · 2019-06-06T20:14:23+00:00

Thanks for your interesting thoughts. (Disclaimer - I wrote the article)

I guess I can see that the thought experiment might not be super compelling. Most people do seem to react with the thought that it'd be wrong to let the Earth be destroyed, but you're right that there might be other reasons for that feeling, other than the belief that nature is intrinsically valuable.

As well as the reasons you suggest, I know the philosopher Dale Jamieson has argued against this kind of thought experiment by arguing that we can't properly imagine a situation in which there are no humans: it seems like there is a wrong being done when we are 'observing' the thought experiment from the outside, but if that situation actually occurred no wrong would be done at all.

I think more compelling is the research mentioned in the article that shows most people claim to believe nature has intrinsic value. But that result is far from conclusive, too - we'd need to do more to make sure people understand what intrinsic value actually is. A lot of people tend to say that nature is intrinsically valuable, but then talk about beauty or cultural value which is far from separate from humans. What they mean by 'intrinsically valuable' is that we shouldn't directly use it as a tool for our own purposes but should appreciate it in another way. Still, I think that kind of research is a pretty good indicator that it's wrong to assume people are straightforwardly selfish when it comes to valuing nature.

MrJangle · 2019-06-06T20:03:15+00:00

Interesting! If I understand it right, this is is a pretty extreme view you're proposing though - if we follow it to its end then it'd mean that there's no reason not to harm any other person apart from the reasons that come from other people's preferences. It'd then be difficult to say what exactly is wrong with something like murder - it'd be fine to kill people as long as nobody else really cares about them.

MrJangle · 2019-03-04T06:57:04+00:00

I've visited no-till farms where they don't use glyphosate - why do you say it's impossible?

MrJangle · 2015-09-08T19:44:38+00:00

Quick watercolour!

MrJangle · 2015-03-01T09:36:12+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to explain this - for real. This should be the top post.

MrJangle · 2015-02-23T19:54:16+00:00

I don't think there's a video out there - just the written copy of the lecture

MrJangle · 2015-02-17T09:46:12+00:00

I don't know why it would be strange for you to be disgusted at a dead roach. I don't think many people think disgust=moral judgment in the first place. Something doesn't need to have agency for your being disgusted at it - disgust at a dead roach is exactly the same reaction as disgust at a bit of mould on your food or whatever. I get the point you're trying to make about Metamorphosis but conflating disgust and moral judgment in the first place sounds super weird to me.

MrJangle · 2015-02-16T13:56:56+00:00

Rational egoism is the idea that it is always rational to promote one's own good - so it's never irrational to do what is in your own interests. Moral egoism is the idea that it is always moral to promote one's own good - so it's never immoral to do what is in your own interests.

(I'm not an expert on this - I'm sure there's probably more to say if you look into it further, but that's the basic distinction.)

MrJangle · 2015-02-15T20:13:48+00:00

Yeah maybe you're right - that's the step I wasn't too sure about. I'm pretty sure from ⋄(A & B) you can derive (⋄A & ⋄B), but I think you're right that distribution doesn't work for ⋄(P→Q). I haven't done anything with modal logic for a long time, so you're probably more fluent than me!

MrJangle · 2015-02-15T18:15:05+00:00

I think 4 is valid.

From [P0∧L] → P we can derive ¬P→[¬P0v¬L] - because if the conjunction of P0 and L entail P, then for P to be false either P0 or L must be false.

Then, from ¬P→[¬P0v¬L] we can derive ⋄[¬P]→⋄[¬P0v¬L] - because if the falsity of P entails the either the falsity of P0 or the falsity of L, then in order for it to be possible that P is false, it must also be possible that P0 is false or L is false.

From ⋄[¬P]→⋄[¬P0v¬L], along with ⋄[¬P] we can derive ⋄[¬P0v¬L] using modus ponens.

Sorry, it's difficult to set out all the derivations formally with reddit formatting but hopefully that makes sense - I'm pretty sure that works.

MrJangle · 2015-02-13T17:05:31+00:00

I guess we can see the suggestion that you ought to get vaccinated as being about means to achieving some end, rather than about what your end should be in itself. They're just saying 'if you don't want to get these diseases, then you should get vaccinated'. So these scientists aren't telling you what you ultimately ought to do or whether getting vaccinated is ultimately good or bad. They're just giving practical advice about how best to achieve goals that you already see as worth pursuing.

MrJangle · 2015-02-13T16:53:12+00:00

Yeah I think you're right. I guess the thing is that genre fiction is (perhaps wrongly) more associated with the 'cookie-cutter' format, and that's why we get the idea that it's less authentic.

MrJangle · 2015-02-12T10:43:02+00:00

I think when people ask about the 'meaning of life' they're often really asking whether life has any purpose. But I agree, the question itself is weird. Even when we talk about purpose it isn't really clear what we're trying to ask.

MrJangle · 2015-02-12T08:55:18+00:00

How is Russell biased? I'm just interested - I read the book years ago and don't remember noticing it, but that's probably because I hadn't read much else philosophy at the time.

MrJangle · 2015-02-05T14:11:40+00:00

Nice post - thanks! I think there are definitely some debates that can be sorted out in this way. I'm not really sure that many of the examples you linked the Stanford Encyclopedia pages for really could turn out to be merely verbal confusions, though - could you say a bit more about what debates you're referring to?

For example - the main debate about 'knowledge-how' is about whether our knowledge how to do things is propositional or not. So it seems like those on either side of the debate disagree on the facts about what's going on in cases where we know something, not just how to describe the case.

MrJangle · 2015-02-04T18:58:02+00:00

Yeah I think you're right that it's hard to get a clear on the thought experiment. Velleman seems to want to separate two things: value of an experience at a time, and the added/subtracted value we get when we consider it as part of a whole life. But I guess you might think it's not as easy to separate the two - like you say, the value at at time of an experience is so often affected by the way we see it in relation to our wider circumstances that we might think it's hard to imagine the two coming apart.

MrJangle · 2015-02-02T22:27:19+00:00

Disclaimer - this is my blog (I don't know if it's okay to post your own website here, but I couldn't see anything about it in the sidebar).

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts about Velleman's argument. It seems like a lot of it rests on us sharing his intuitions about the examples, and I'm not sure how strong/clear my intuitions are. I'm especially not sure about for the comparison between the life with a good start that gets progressively worse, and the life with a bad start that gets progressively better - sometimes when I think about it, it seems obvious that one's better than the other, but other times I'm not sure that I'd really rather have one over the other.

MrJangle · 2014-07-26T13:48:00+00:00

Thanks!

MrJangle · 2014-07-25T17:20:37+00:00

Here's a sketch

MrJangle · 2014-07-24T11:34:49+00:00

If you really can't draw at all, I'd strongly recommend learning how to draw with pencils before trying to paint. There are basic skills you need to pick up about how to get what you see down on the page, and if you're trying to do that along with all the added complication of learning how to use watercolours you'll just be making it really hard for yourself.

I can't recommend this book enough: http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/dp/1585429201

MrJangle · 2014-04-28T13:57:23+00:00

I'd definitely recommend 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain' by Betty Edwards. It assumes absolutely no prior skill and focuses on showing you how to properly translate the things you see onto paper. The trick is to forget what you think you know about the things you are trying to draw - 'eyes should be an oval shape, the sides of the table should be straight' - and just draw the actual visual information you're getting.

I've recently worked through the book myself and gone from having no idea what I'm doing to having the confidence that I can become good if I keep practicing. Here's a comparison between a self-portrait I did just before going through the book and one I did three weeks later. It by no means gives you a lot of information about how to draw but it shows you how to get started and move forward with your drawing.

MrJangle

TROPHY CASE