Matt_Sharp
Bio
I'm just a normal, functioning member of the human race, and there's no way anyone can prove otherwise
Posts 4
Comments136
"You say that viewed from your and many EA’s moral framework, nature has no value?"
No - Gemma said nature has no "intrinsic moral value". There is a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Intrinsic value is something that is valued for its own sake. Instrumental value is where something is valuable because it contributes to something else.
Nature clearly has instrumental value, i.e. "we care about environmental protection primarily because of its impact on sentient beings".
But nature isn't the only thing that has an impact on sentient beings. The question is how we should best use additional resources (e.g. time and money) to improve outcomes for sentient beings.
Spending more on protecting nature is obviously one option, but not the only one. If we spend more on nature, we have less to spend on human disease and animal welfare etc. So we need to consider all the options, and focus on where we can do the most good.
This is just speculation, but I wonder if it's more cost-effective to donate to a Senate candidate who is also running in a Presidential swing state? Maybe Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Arizona?
It seems plausible that a strong Senate candidate could inspire voters to get out and vote for a President they're not enthusiastic about - essentially a 'reverse coattails' effect (though I don't think there's particularly strong evidence for this)
Lab-grown meat approved for pet food in the UK
"The UK has become the first European country to approve putting lab-grown meat in pet food.
Regulators cleared the use of chicken cultivated from animal cells, which lab meat company Meatly is planning to sell to manufacturers.
The company says the first samples of its product will go on sale as early as this year, but it would only scale its production to reach industrial volumes in the next three years."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c19k0ky9v4yo
I guess it's worth waiting to see what each party says in its manifesto.
But unless the polls dramatically tighten, it doesn't seem particularly valuable to spend time weighing up which party to vote for at a national level because it's highly likely (>90%) that Labour will win.
What might be valuable is considering the top couple of candidates in your local constituency (once candidates are confirmed) and going along to a hustings event to directly ask them for their views. Some constituencies will be determined by a relatively small number of votes - potentially a few hundred or even a few tens. But even if it's a relatively safe seat, this could help nudge the winning candidate to support better safety/regulation.
I expect that the best thing to do will vary substantially depending on whether we're considering
With (a), we'd want to consider some of the cultural risks or unintended consequences (e.g. as pointed by David Mathers and titotal) alongside the benefit of different perspectives. But this is less important for (b), where engaging and collaborating with people with more conversative perspectives could be critical for a project to succeed. With (c) I guess we should welcome and encourage funding from most sources, at least from small/medium donors (with larger donors we may want to be more cautious in case of reputational risks - but this obviously doesn't just apply to conservatives!)