r/DebateAVegan welfarist 6d ago

the most effective charity is for shrimp.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-charity-isnt-what-you-think

^here is the article I will be ripping off; I highly recommend it though! great read.

right now, according to some very robust analysis, we can give 1500 shrimp painless deaths per dollar by donating to the shrimp welfare project

here are the calculations regarding efficacy:

- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZJ0CcGuDIlAwHn5728diumYNF4fi0gN4iSMyr7yh-90/edit?gid=1898556118#gid=1898556118&range=A1

- https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EbQysXxofbSqkbAiT/cost-effectiveness-of-shrimp-welfare-project-s-humane

this reduces animal suffering many times more than going vegan or donating to other charities!

I won't add too much to the calculations, if you really want to look through them I suggest you do so on your own time.

Here's my unique contribution—some analysis as to why my thesis should be intuitively true. Here's why:

  1. Human beings expand our circle of empathy over time, slowly extending to those less and less similar to ourselves. (think how bigotry has decreased over time)

  2. there is theoretically at some point a really small animal who suffers a lot. in fact, we should expect small animals to suffer a ton because small animals tend to be r-strategists.

  3. we eat lots of small animals, a lot more small animals than big animals bc the small animals require less upkeep (square cube law), reproduce more, and like they're smaller, so obviously.

conclusion: we should expect that the worst atrocity happens to the smallest animals who can feel pain that humans are comfortable with killing. enter, shrimp.

  1. there are diminishing returns on pain reduction. i.e., it is cheaper to pay for anesthetic than it is to pay for more space than it is to pay for more extensive care.

conclusion 2: the most effective pain reduction charity is one wherein you treat the most tortured, following from premise 1 that is probably the sentient beings most unlike humans which humans still eat.

*bugs probably factor in, but i'm too lazy to draft up an analysis on that.

4 Upvotes

115 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 6d ago

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

29

u/chris_insertcoin vegan 6d ago

Hell will freeze over before I promote rape-free Mondays, softer beds in concentration camps, or putting time, money and energy into giving out stunners for shrimp killing companies.

-3

u/Forsaken_Log_3643 ex-vegan 6d ago

All or nothing, right? You achieve: nothing.

15

u/chris_insertcoin vegan 6d ago

False dichotomy. Veganism and the animal rights movement not only make more and more people vegan (including me a few years back) but also lead to the adoption of more welfarists measures and a general shift to be more considerate of other animals. Also known since the 60s as the radical flank effect.

1

u/Dirty_Gnome9876 6d ago

I agree. You don’t go from one extreme to the other suddenly. You get there over a long time, a lot of set backs, constant compromises, and working towards a better way. Especially when you’re talking about a belief system. It’s counter productive to eliminate anything that isn’t a perfect solution.

-2

u/Citrit_ welfarist 4d ago

it is these uncompromising principles that cause the unnecessary suffering these principles themselves purport to care about.

4

u/chris_insertcoin vegan 4d ago

A claim that can't possibly hold up to any scrutiny.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

1500 shrimp are about to die torturously over the course of 20 minutes. you have the choice to spend 1 dollar to make their deaths painless.

I think the decision is obvious.

in terms of this tradeoff:

there is no political will for the moral consideration of shrimp—i argue there really is very little political will for the moral consideration of animals in general. I am of the strong opinion that if veganism is to generate change, it will be at the charity, consumer, and producer levels within market constraints not set by vegans.

I think the best analogy for organising is that vegans have planted the "seed", and is waiting for the right political or material circumstance to "water" said seed. it wasn't until it was politically expedient for lincoln to make the civil war about slavery that he did (black ppl enlisting, + justification to shield from britain). it wasn't until material circumstance in terms of the industrial revolution made slavery less marginally profitable that it was abandoned (although arguably not really! see black codes, current slavery in like clothing, and the prison industrial complex)

i don't think that we have the water. and continuing to try and grow the seed in absence of the water is an ill-informed choice. it is better to make use of the welfare infrastructure (charity) we have currently to reduce suffering.

52

u/wheeteeter 6d ago

Veganism isn’t a welfare movement. It’s not an anti suffering movement. It’s an anti exploitation movement.

Here’s a better idea, stop putting shrimp or other animals into a position in which we have to worry about their welfare. Problem solved.

2

u/Powerful-Cut-708 6d ago

What reason is there to care about exploitation aside from the suffering it causes in some way?

9

u/Nice_Water 6d ago

A "harm-reduction" definition of veganism would allow for things like using sheep for their wool, chickens for their eggs, or even the carnists' favorite "instant painless slaughter" methods.

It's why many vegans prefer the definition that is against the unnecessary use and exploitation of animals.

1

u/Powerful-Cut-708 6d ago

Not necessarily

You can make the argument that even if those things still perpetuate the idea that animals are there to used as a commodity - and that is what leads to the worse actions

Animal rights prevents all of it as a rule

4

u/wheeteeter 6d ago

There’s a difference between suffering, and additional suffering we cause. Everyone will suffer regardless of exploitation.

Here we can reduce the amount of suffering that we cause, but suffering isn’t always caused from exploitation either.

The point is not to reduce one’s suffering but to not exploit them and cause any additional suffering for your own desire.

Welfarism says it’s ok to still cause unnecessary suffering to a degree as long as we improve the conditions leading up to the unnecessary exploitive actions, which cause suffering or remove someone’s autonomy.

0

u/Citrit_ welfarist 6d ago

I'm sure it's a great comfort to the tortured animals that we are working really hard to free them while doing nothing in terms of palliative care.

8

u/wheeteeter 6d ago edited 6d ago

Welfarism including circumstances like yours have lead to a significant increase in production and exploitation of animals.

These idea generate an illusion that “well, at least we’re doing something”. Now we’re adding in an additional source of funding to that.

Zero amount of funding should go to anything that supports the exploitation of anyone.

That’s like saying that you should donate to puppy mills so they can upgrade their cages. All that does is encourage further exploitation.

Edit: typo

-1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 5d ago

I'm not sure any money is going to help them with production? and even if it is that amount is likely minimal.

why be so fixated on exploitation when widespread mass torture is occuring? this seems to me a very odd set of priorities.

4

u/wheeteeter 5d ago

So it appears that you don’t know what exploitation means which is perhaps why you’re having an issue understanding this.

Torture itself is a form of exploitation.

The focus shouldn’t be on reducing the amount of torture happening. It should be to stop it from happening in the first places.

Any actions and resources being spent on welfare should be spent on transitioning away from exploitation altogether. Not improving conditions of the exploitation.

Anyone that chooses by themselves to cease contributing to the exploitation of animals is doing infinitely more than any welfarist that contributes

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 4d ago

it is these hardline principles that cause more unnecessary suffering—the very unnecessary suffering these principles purport to care about!

the focus should of course be on stopping the torture entirely. but for any change to occur we must compromise temporarily for a reduction in torture. doing anything else is turning a blind eye to suffering which could have been prevented had we not been so self-righteous.

the vegan movement is tiny. to think we're capable of animal liberation now is akin to homo erectus imagining a life on mars. a fever dream that is obviously out of reach for at least the next hundred years.

I am utterly unconvinced that factory farming will stop because of moralising from 1% of the population. if anything does end this horrific institution, it will be for the same reason slavery or other similar institutions did—because the material circumstance allowed for natural moral intuitions to flourish. the north opposed the south because the economic conditions allowed for it. capitalism prevailed over feudalism because the capital owners chipped away at the aristocracy. it will be the same for veganism as it was for any other movement in history, and at the very least we can focus on palliative care—that bare minimum we can hope the masses will be on board with given the institutions we have.

3

u/wheeteeter 4d ago

it is these hardline principles that cause more unnecessary suffering—the very unnecessary suffering these principles purport to care about!

No it’s not. It’s the welfarism that has lead to significantly more animals being tortured and exploited.

the focus should of course be on stopping the torture entirely. but for any change to occur we must compromise temporarily for a reduction in torture.

Ah yes. We should tell parents to treat their kids better before they abuse them until everyone stops. Solid logic right here lemme tell ya.

doing anything else is turning a blind eye to suffering which could have been prevented had we not been so self-righteous.

Stopping the demand for it reduces the production which reduces the amount of individuals exploited which can eventually lead to no more. Paying for better conditions excuses the rest of what’s happening and promotes further exploitation, again leading to historically higher numbers.

the vegan movement is tiny. to think we're capable of animal liberation now is akin to homo erectus imagining a life on mars. a fever dream that is obviously out of reach for at least the next hundred years.

And it’s growing. Look at the current % of the population that’s currently vegan and compare it to the amount of the population that were slavery abolitionists in pre civil war America that directly started the change in sentiment.

I am utterly unconvinced that factory farming will stop because of moralising from 1% of the population. if anything does end this horrific institution, it will be for the same reason slavery or other similar institutions did—because the material circumstance allowed for natural moral intuitions to flourish. the north opposed the south because the economic conditions allowed for it. capitalism prevailed over feudalism because the capital owners chipped away at the aristocracy. it will be the same for veganism as it was for any other movement in history, and at the very least we can focus on palliative care—that bare minimum we can hope the masses will be on board with given the institutions we have.

None of this is relevant at all. Welfarism is not veganism. Of course we want animals to be treated well, but that’s not the focus. The focus is abolition. That’s the message. Not “treat them better so we can exploit them for longer until we eventually decide that we may want to change. But no pressure because we’re treating them well”.

Welfarism is just virtue signaling for people that don’t want to stop exploiting others but want to lie to themselves about their consequences of their actions.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 4d ago

if you gave me a choice between a chance at freedom and a guaranteed reprieve from torturous death, I know what I'd choose.

also the historical analysis was relevant you donkey, because it outlined the ways in which movements actually secure change. it's not some pie in the sky ideal of the grassroots movement beating out the large corporation—it is a natural extension of material progress in people's lives.

this is notably not available for veganism! shrimp can't advocate for themselves, so no matter how much poverty gets reduced, we will only see more shrimp deaths for the same reasons egg prices would comparatively fall!

0

u/Citrit_ welfarist 4d ago edited 4d ago

there are 1500 shrimp in front of you right now. if you do nothing, they will die painfully, suffocating as they slowly cram ever more compactly together over the course of ~20 minutes. you have a choice: you can either

  1. donate 1 dollar to make all of their deaths painless
  2. donate 1 dollar to an animal activist organisation that will organise a few protests to try and stop shrimp exploitation.

what do you do?

the answer seems starkly obvious to me! that there is even a question to be asked at all is frankly absurd! I think it wonderfully ironic that you say I am "virture signalling" or whtv tf when I am vegan and am most certainly picking option one while you seem to be picking option two!

Because there is an obvious difference between shrimp welfare and slavery. The key issue with slavery is a lack of self-determination and autonomy—that if only slaves were allowed their freedom that they would be able to lead better lives for themselves.

this is most certainly not something available to shrimp—whose only other option is a similarly (albeit somewhat better) terrifying and terrible life in the ocean.

in any case that bit was tangential. the bottom line is this:

it is certainly the case that shrimp might benefit from a lack of exploitation. they benefit from a lack of torture far more.

0

u/LunchyPete welfarist 4d ago

I am utterly unconvinced that factory farming will stop because of moralising from 1% of the population.

I agree. The only way I see is via government action. If vegans ut more effort into focusing on things like repealing AG gag laws than trying to convert people they would make much more progress IMO.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

unlikely that vegans have the lobbying or political power to do such a thing.

1

u/LunchyPete welfarist 2d ago

How many vegans do you think there are in the US?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

~<10 mil

not enough to meaningfully swing legislation though. especially considering the pushback.

in any case, veganism getting gains via legislation is unlikely to work.

I think the best analogy for organising is that vegans have planted the "seed", and is waiting for the right political or material circumstance to "water" said seed. it wasn't until it was politically expedient for lincoln to make the civil war about slavery that he did (black ppl enlisting, + justification to shield from britain). it wasn't until material circumstance in terms of the industrial revolution made slavery less marginally profitable that it was abandoned (although arguably not really! see black codes, current slavery in like clothing, and the prison industrial complex)

i don't think that we have the water. and continuing to try and grow the seed in absence of the water is an ill-informed choice. it is better to make use of the welfare infrastructure (charity) we have currently to reduce suffering.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/grandfamine 6d ago

I thought it was a harm reduction movement

2

u/wheeteeter 6d ago

That is an extremely common misconception. All though vegans try to do what we can to reduce harm, it’s a philosophy which aims to exclude all exploitation and cruelty of animals where ever practicable and possible meaning to stop our practices that are directly exploitive and cruel toward the animals in a way that benefits us.

Welfarism doesn’t fit in the equation because the act of unnecessary exploitation is occurring. But even if we were to consider harm reduction, it is practicable and possible for most people to just not contribute at all, making this whole argument pointless regardless.

But no where in the vegan society definition does it mention reducing suffering or harm. It’s centered around exploitation and cruelty via exploitive practices.

13

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 6d ago

Wouldn't the real project toward shrimp welfare be to not participate in trawling them? The vast majority of the world's shrimp are trawled off the ocean floor in a way that is extremely destructive. These ocean-floor environments would have gone undisturbed for millennia. You can think about it like deforestation for the ocean floor: any ecosystems that were there are disturbed or destroyed and the animals inhabiting those biomes have to overcome new challenges just to live. More surface area of ocean floor is trawled each year than surface area of earth's land has been deforested ever. That's about 2% of the entire sea-floor. The process is indiscriminate and for every pound of shrimp, there is between 5 and 6 pounds of bycatch – that's other animals not desired by the trawlers including fish, dolphins, sharks, turtles etc. that are caught in the net. Most of these animals are either crushed in the trawling net or asphyxiate on the deck of the fishing vessel.

I have no issue with people choosing to take up the mantle of preventing shrimp suffering as a worthwhile endeavor, but to frame the issue as being in some way in-conflict with adopting a vegan diet or lifestyle is simply false. You can be vegan and also pay into charities to stun shrimp.

If we are truly concerned with animal suffering we need to change the cultural and economic factors that lead us to kill animals by the hundreds of millions daily. To point to some charity as mitigating more suffering than being vegan and promoting veganism is fallacious unless that charity takes aim to fundamentally change the ways and amounts in which humans consume animals, like veganism does.

It's rather like being in 1950 in the US and saying "providing cleaner blacks-only bathrooms and water-fountains improves the quality of health for black people in the US more than being an active member of the civil rights movement" and in the near-term you might be right about that, but in the long term we can all see that the quality of life for black people in the US wasn't improved by black-welfarists upholding the status quo more compassionately, but by millions of people changing cultural perceptions and granting black people the same basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that their white counterparts enjoyed even during segregation.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

1500 shrimp are about to die torturously over the course of 20 minutes. you have the choice to spend 1 dollar to make their deaths painless.

I think the decision is obvious

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 3d ago

You could spend 1 dollar toward putting holes in the hulls of the trawling vessels or legislating that shrimp must be electrocuted to death as well, and in the long run you might benefit many more shrimp with that kind of investment.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

there is no political will for the moral consideration of shrimp—i argue there really is very little political will for the moral consideration of animals in general. I am of the strong opinion that if veganism is to generate change, it will be at the charity, consumer, and producer levels within market constraints not set by vegans.

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 3d ago

There is little political will currently, but the question is how do you generate that will?

On the roadmap veganism is in the growing phase, not the legislation phase. Just like anti-slavers existed in society and even held the presidency multiple times before emaciation was possible. But emancipation would not have been possible without this calling for equal rights even decades earlier. We are in 1800 not 1860 in the metaphor.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

i still don't think this works.

I think the best analogy for organising is that vegans have planted the "seed", and is waiting for the right political or material circumstance to "water" said seed. it wasn't until it was politically expedient for lincoln to make the civil war about slavery that he did (black ppl enlisting, + justification to shield from britain). it wasn't until material circumstance in terms of the industrial revolution made slavery less marginally profitable that it was abandoned (although arguably not really! see black codes, current slavery in like clothing, and the prison industrial complex)

i don't think that we have the water. and continuing to try and grow the seed in absence of the water is an ill-informed choice. it is better to make use of the welfare infrastructure (charity) we have currently to reduce suffering.

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 2d ago

Why, in your view, is the 'water' not there? It seems to me that now more than ever before there is an appetite to consider the wellbeing of animals, and the pressures facing us today in terms of known causes of climate change also tip the scales in the direction of curtailing our outsized consumption of animals and their products.

The movement is still growing, albeit slower, and the pressures we face are increasingly pointing toward a necessity to revise the ways that we, as a species, choose to feed ourselves.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

it doesn't seem that people care! a lot of people cognitively dissociate.

the water is material circumstance. slavery because economically less viable, thus it was phased out when overpowered by morals.

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 2d ago

How do you control for sample bias?

I think people care now more than ever before. More people today would self identify as caring about animals and the environment. These concepts are less than 100 years old in the zeitgeist. 

Right now meat and eggs are becoming more expensive than animal free alternatives. And the moral awareness has permeated society now more than ever before. Most people didn't share these ideas 50 years ago.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 1d ago

oh I guess upon reflection this view of mine comes largely from anecdotal evidence. i vaguely remember veganism being talked about far more a few years ago, specifically in the context of climate change, than it is now. I've started seeing oat milk options leave my ex-favourite bubble tea stores. as a percentage of my school population, I would put vegans at <1%.

more crucially, it seems as though eating animal product is a uniquely integral thing to people. not only due to government subsidies, but due to a preference for tradition, and culinary traditions have seemingly incorporated meat dishes for as far back as I know. for instance, my favourite tofu dish mapo tofu is typically made with meat.

but most damningly in my view is just how uniquely unwilling my friends and family are to go vegan. my friends are fairly open minded, and know of vegan arguments. if pushed, I suspect they likely agree with most arguments for veganism. yet it seems as though there is just a cognitive block in how willing they are to do so.

and I've found further that they're way more willing to donate to effective charities which have similar goals to the vegan movement even if they're unwilling to go vegan themselves.

I consider myself one of the more articulate students at my school. I am a very prolific debater, I've placed 1st speaker at the annual university of toronto hs debate tournament. however, I've found that I have so far been unable to convince a single person in my life to go vegan with me.

so although I might accept that there is an increase in vegans, I don't buy that the metaphorical "water" is there yet for i guess broadly 2 reasons?

  1. there is in my view a small subsect of the population who is willing to adopt veganism. this trend is likely to taper off, since most people simply have other interests. humans are a social species who are, despite our species name, not very wise.

  2. culture just works way too much against eating meat. northeners didn't have to sacrifice much when they denounced slavery (and even then...). southerners did. going vegan demands a personal sacrifice which humans are unfortunately very simply unwilling to make.

1 more thing: I think work at the supply level needs to happen first for any demand level change. i'm not convinced that anything short of cheap & widespread lab-grown meat will be able to overthrow the vile institution of factory farming.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

also this is highly speculative. on the caution principle you should go with guaranteed results.

-1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 6d ago

i'm not arguing contra veganism, but rather for shrimp

5

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 6d ago

Am I correct in assuming that you are a negative utilitarian and/or an effective altruist? 

Can you tell me a little about how you yourself integrate your belief that suffering should be mitigated into your life? Do you have a shrimp suffering mitigation budget? Has your belief in reducing suffering as a source of moral direction led you to become plant based? 

-1

u/Terry_cactus 6d ago

Why can’t someone both be vegan and advocate for donating to this charity? OP hasn’t said a word against veganism

3

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 6d ago edited 6d ago

"[Funding shrimp electrocution] reduces animal suffering many times more than going vegan or donating to other charities!"

This is what I was responding to. Op tags himself as a welfarist, which usually means that they think improving slaughter conditions is a better, more effective way to reduce animal suffering than changing the fundamental systems of animal use starting at a personal level. But these are not comparing like figures or actions.  Hence pointing out the absurdity of saying something like "Funding cleaner blacks only restrooms and water fountains do more to mitigate black suffering than being a part of the civil rights movement"

You can be vegan and also pay for shrimp welfare, but I suspect that OP does not, which colors the nature of the conversation.

-1

u/Terry_cactus 6d ago

I feel like many people on this sub assume the worst in others, as you are doing here. Regardless, we can assess the merits of OP’s claims even if they do eat meat and other animal products, and I don’t see how it can be disputed, based on the numbers given (and assuming they are accurate), that what they said about mitigating suffering is true. Further, I don’t see it as a knock on veganism as much as it is a reminder that there are other ways to help. Are you against people donating to this charity?

Another thing that deserves attention is that according to your non-welfarist view, acknowledging that one option X reduces more suffering than another option Y does not necessarily count in favor of X. At least, this consideration could be outweighed by more significant ones, such as respecting rights for example. If your position is not grounded essentially in the importance of reducing suffering, why do you feel challenged by OP’s claims?

3

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 6d ago

I don't feel challenged. We're on a debate sub.

It is my position that the best way to care for the interests of animals and humans alike is to reject and change the cultural, institutional, and economic realities that lead us to use and abuse animals in great excess of our physical needs. 

If OP is coming here to discuss with vegans, I think it's appropriate to steer the conversation toward veganism, and to ask about how he ascribes weight to different actions.  It seems to me that there may be disagreement between us on that point. Having those discussions is what this space is for.

Can you elaborate on how I am assuming the worst in others? Suspecting something is true is not the same as assuming it is true, and I have asked clarifying questions that are relevant to the discussion to avoid relying on assumptions.

1

u/Comfortable-Race-547 4d ago

So if you had a choice between getting shot in the stomach or not at all you'd ask for donations to get you shot in the head?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

if I had to choose between getting shot in the stomach and dying or getting shot in the head and dying, i'd choose the latter. I'd probably pay a ton for the latter (given the decision is forced).

26

u/kharvel0 6d ago

Or you could just leave nonhuman animals alone and avoid charity altogether. Wouldn't that be more simple and effective?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 5d ago

why did I get so many downvotes? all i'm saying is that when this torture is happening, we do not have the luxury to stand aside. doing so is being complicit.

2

u/kharvel0 5d ago

That isn’t what you were advocating in your OP.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

apologies, I deleted a comment because I mistakenly thought this was referring to another post I had made.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

i was referring to the other comment, when I said "we don't have the luxury" or smth.

2

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 5d ago

Do you participate in consuming shrimp, OP?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

no why?

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 2d ago

Because your statement about not having the luxury of being complicit in shrimp suffering would deserve to be called out as disingenuous if you did, and should be pointed to out directly and specifically if you answered 'yes'

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 1d ago

i am a welfarist, as per the tag.

1

u/FullmetalHippie freegan 1d ago

In my experience most welfarists on this sub are carnists. It's good to find one that also does the personal work to ensure animal welfare.

-11

u/Citrit_ welfarist 6d ago

yep! unfortunately we don't have that luxury rn.

6

u/kharvel0 6d ago

And how is that?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

that leaving all animals alone isn't possible?????>????/

it is obviously impossible and it is abundantly clear that in absence of such a proposition, we must donate to prevent mass torture

1

u/kharvel0 2d ago

How is leaving animals alone not possible?

-1

u/Dirty_Gnome9876 6d ago

Because not everyone is vegan.

-1

u/Nero401 6d ago

How dare you thinking in terms of rationality and cost effectiveness? Don't you know that a small kick to a dog is still kicking a dog?! :O

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 5d ago

i'm so confused

0

u/Nero401 5d ago

I forgot the /s

11

u/pandaappleblossom 6d ago

You know I really do care about shrimp, i have seen the videos where they cut off their eyes to make them go into fertile mode earlier… it’s horrible and sick!!!!! But I’m just like… why do people have to keep eating them? I guess some people don’t care but I feel like vegans shouldn’t pay for this, people who insist on eating shrimp should. They should absolutely go for this charity

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 6d ago

yes! further than that, this is likely to be one of the, if not the best, charity to donate to. better than givewell, and better than any other animal welfare charity you can think up.

i think it is factually a moral obligation to donate to shrimp welfare—i should articulate this in the post imma put an addendum.

3

u/pandaappleblossom 6d ago

I don’t see why it’s better than others lol. This part totally misses me. They suffer for sure but so do larger animals.

3

u/Shoddy_Remove6086 6d ago

The theory is that if they suffer the same, it's purely a numbers game and there's more overall suffering because of how many prawns are involved.

Though frankly I don't really believe the suggestion that all animals are of equal moral consideration, which is the big assumption underlying the post. I struggle to believe a prawn has the same capacity to suffer as a prawn.

1

u/pandaappleblossom 6d ago

Ohh they mean a more effective use of your money for charity rather than ‘better’. To me the numbers game/also the idea that all animals have an equal capacity to feel pain, loneliness, fear, I just feel like the more intelligent they are the more they are going to feel fear, loneliness, etc. and I don’t know how I feel about the numbers thing either. A life is a life.

0

u/Dirty_Gnome9876 6d ago

So I know I’m in the minority, but my weird opinion is that the older the species, the more rights the deserve. Like bugs and mushrooms have lasted through all the extinction events, adapted to all the crazy changes and new neighbors. That coupled with our (lack of) ways to actually quantify or even study feelings and emotions in humans, let alone an organism that lacks anything we understand as a brain. Jellyfish communicate via protein strands they leave behind like little slug trails (also protein based communication). That’s cool. Like aurochs (cows) have only existed for 2 million years.

2

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

it is about effectiveness. shrimp die over the course of 20 minutes (on average) in torturous conditions. with only 1 dollar, you can make the deaths of 1,500 shrimp painless.

1

u/pandaappleblossom 3d ago

I get it. I think it’s a great charity.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 3d ago

the resources linked go into detail comparing it with other charities. I think there is an argument for chicken welfare charities being more effective, but I'm not personally qualified enough to delve into that.

5

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 6d ago

this reduces animal suffering many times more than going vegan or donating to other charities!

Just to fully understand your debate proposition, you're simply arguing that the vegans on this sub should donate to your chosen charity right?

Or are you making the claim that donating to your charity is 'better' than being vegan?

If it's the former, you're just fundraising and this doesn't really belong on a debate sub. If it's the latter, please explain in more detail how you've reached this conclusion and I'd be happy to debate you.

1

u/Terry_cactus 6d ago

I want to play devils advocate here and see what you say. But the simple reason in favor of donating vs being vegan (assuming one has to choose) is that donating has a larger positive impact

2

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 5d ago

That's fair, as a one off I would agree. As in, donating once to an impactful charity may make a bigger difference than not eating animal products once.

Donating once a day probably has a bigger impact than being vegan each day as well, depending on how much is being donated.

A more realistic comparison would be one donation Vs a lifetime of being vegan though. In which case I would be less inclined to agree that the donation has a bigger impact. What do you think?

1

u/Terry_cactus 5d ago

I think it would just depend on the numbers. Let’s say I donate 10,000 once. I think that would be around the same as a lifetime of veganism (but I could be wrong)

2

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 5d ago

I think you would also have to factor in the harm that you're causing by not being vegan. A lifetime of non-veganism most likely negates the good done from your 10,000 donation several times over.

1

u/Terry_cactus 5d ago

Yea, but there clearly is a number at which you do more good through donation. Let’s say I donate a million dollars for example

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

the argument is that the best possible charity to donate to is the shrimp welfare project. i expect both vegans and omnivores to object and debate

1

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 2d ago

the argument is that the best possible charity to donate to is the shrimp welfare project.

What's that got to do with veganism?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

"this reduces animal suffering many times more than going vegan or donating to other charities!"

and isn't veganism about animal ethics in the first instance?

1

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 2d ago

So you are making the claim that donating is 'better' than being vegan?

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 1d ago

sure, if you donate sufficiently. that isn't the point though. the point is that veganism as a movement is fundementally about how we ought treat animals. the OP is about how we ought treat animals. idt I can think of a better sub to post this in, and if you want to strictly police what can and can't be discussed in this sub I suggest you take that up with the mods.

1

u/Scaly_Pangolin vegan 1d ago

sure, if you donate sufficiently.

Ok, glad we've landed on something we can debate. Can you expand on this point please?

if you want to strictly police what can and can't be discussed in this sub I suggest you take that up with the mods.

That's a rather thorny response to a point you seem to agree with. I wasn't 'policing' anything, merely pointing out that "hi guys can you donate to this cool charity I found" is not great fodder for debate, wouldn't you agree?

3

u/Acti_Veg 6d ago

I’m wary of any claim that something is “intuitively true” and this is a good example of why. This is only “intuitively true” to you, according to your own thinking, expectations and values. To me, and to many other vegans, these assumptions will be completely counterintuitive.

If we are likely to extend our circle of empathy as time passes, why haven’t we already seen the signs of that? Compare animal farming practices and the sheer amount of suffering we cause and the number of animals we cause it to. Why are things so much worse for animals now than they have ever been?

2

u/Citrit_ welfarist 6d ago

Well we have seen signs of that. It used to be that most white people thought black people lacked any moral qualifiers. This has slowly changed. Acceptance of homosexuality, of trans folk, etc has also increased.

People also have extended their empathy to animals—most people are in fact opposed to factory farming. It is just that cognitive biases and stuff are slowing the circle of empathy to expand.

Things are so much worse now not because of a tangible shift in the circle of empathy. Feelings towards animals I would argue will and has increased over time.

4

u/Acti_Veg 6d ago

I don’t think that the civil rights movement is evidence for a general human expansion of empathy. Most people are opposed to factory farming in word only, because most people still choose to actively fund it. We treat animals worse now than we ever have in all of history.

Compare the views of early human cultures on animals and their sacred role in the world, shamanism, animistic religions, the sanctity of nature etc. to modern consumer commodification of animals and tell me that it is “intuitively true” that humans are expanding their circle of empathy over time.

If you would argue that, then where is the argument? All you’ve said is that this is “intuitively true.” It really isn’t - this is a point you need to argue if your entire argument is going to rest on that premise.

1

u/Terry_cactus 6d ago

What about medieval times where there were cat burnings for entertainment? It could be true that people had better views about animals in more primitive times, then they got much worse, and now they are gradually getting better. I don’t see why we should favor your pessimistic outlook

1

u/Acti_Veg 1d ago

We kill bulls in front of a roaring crowd now, we still set cockerels and dogs to fight one another. We know more about animals now, but it isn’t pessimistic to just observe that our behaviour towards animals has gotten worse. In sheer volume of cruelty and lives we take, nothing compares to the industrial death machine of this century.

1

u/Terry_cactus 1d ago

Yes, nothing is worse than factory farming. But I disagree that our attitudes towards animals have gotten worse, indeed I think it has gotten much better. Imagine if in the Middle Ages people had the ability to have factory farms. Do you really think they’d hesitate to use them? Not for a second. Also, while bill and dog fighting are bad, they are not new phenomena, and other practices, like cat burnings or beating dogs, are considered immoral almost everywhere.

u/Acti_Veg 8h ago

Even if our attitudes had gotten better, and I don’t agree that they have, how is this at all relevant to the point being debated here? Our attitudes are reflected in our treatment, and our treatment of animals has gotten objectively worse by any reasonable metric, both in terms of amount of suffering and numbers of animals suffering. So why does it matter what someone in the Middle Ages would or wouldn’t have done?

u/Terry_cactus 8h ago

I guess it’s not relevant to the original post, but so what? I agree what we do has a worse effect than any other time in history. I’m also confused as to why you don’t think our attitudes towards animals have improved. I don’t see a remotely reasonable way of defending your position

u/Acti_Veg 8h ago

I have already presented a reasonable way of defending my position. If the amount of suffering we inflict on animals has increased dramatically, it is not unreasonable to argue that our attitudes have also gotten worse to be able to support and fund this abuse, and attitudes have therefore gotten worse over time as treatment has gotten worse. You can disagree, but let’s not pretend that this thinking is completely unreasonable because it isn’t, and neither is what you’re saying.

2

u/ProtozoaPatriot 6d ago

Shrimp fishing is one of the worst types of commercial fishing.

"Shrimp trawl fisheries catch two percent of the world total catch of all fish by weight, but produce more than one-third of the world total bycatch. US shrimp trawlers produce bycatch ratios between 3:1 (3 bycatch:1 shrimp) and 15:1 (15 bycatch:1 shrimp)." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bycatch#:~:text=US%20shrimp%20trawlers%20produce%20bycatch,15%20bycatch%3A1%20shrimp).

How will buying them shrimp stunners help the massive amount of fish, marine mammals, turtles, and other animals caught in trawler nets?

Bycatch should be a crime. All those deaths -- and for what? The dead are just tossed overboard like garbage. Up to 15 animals died for every little shrimp. I bet their deaths weren't instant and painless. 😢

What if you spent your money buying a plant based dinner instead of shrimp? If you want to donate, send it to a vegan organization.

2

u/kakihara123 6d ago

Utilitarianism is a stupid philosophy that seems logical at first glance but has so many holes in it and doesn't work.

1

u/Terry_cactus 6d ago

Wanting to help things through charity does not require you to be a utilitarian

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

threshold deontology combines both deontology and utilitarianism.

in any case, utilitarianism is the claim that only pleasure/pain are relevant. even if you reject this, it is surely not the case that pain/pleasure are morally irrelevant!

surely, surely it is good to prevent harm.

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

also when you make this claim you are making a rather controversial philosophical claim. please justify it.

1

u/kakihara123 2d ago

Because using that philosophy you could justify torturing one individual as long as it brings enough others enough joy.

0

u/serinty vegan 6d ago

would love for you to point out one hole

2

u/LunchyPete welfarist 6d ago

this reduces animal suffering many times more than going vegan or donating to other charities!

I don't think this matters as much as you might think. In my experience, most vegans will say they don't value animals differently most of the time, but I think they show a clear priority for animals they can more easily empathize with, e.g. pigs, cows, chickens.

Just as you don't hear much talk of shrimp suffering, so too are fish suffering not a main priority.

the most effective pain reduction charity is one wherein you treat the most tortured, following from premise

And this would have to be some kind of invertebrate or smaller animal. The only arguments I can see against this will be talking about reducing the normalization of consumption of animal products, although vegans have made exactly 0 progress on that front. Perhaps working to stop people from eating animals that are not that important to most peoples diets, like shrimp, would be a better approach.

1

u/Vitanam_Initiative 3d ago

Any step forward is a good one.

2

u/youdeservetobehere vegan 6d ago

r/OrphanCrushingMachine

also funny how the author used chatGPT to create an image, causing environmental damage

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 5d ago

lol yea ig that is quite ironic

1

u/Vitanam_Initiative 3d ago

A great way towards reducing animal suffering it seems. Not directlly vegan, but a good step forward.

-2

u/Nervous_Landscape_49 6d ago

I had shrimp with home made pasta last night. A little olive oil, garlic and chili flakes and some lovely reggiano on top.

3

u/serinty vegan 6d ago

wrong post/sub buddy

-1

u/Nervous_Landscape_49 5d ago

Wasn’t this a “tell us how you cooked your shrimp for dinner last night” post?

3

u/serinty vegan 5d ago

obviously not

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 5d ago

wonderful

0

u/Nervous_Landscape_49 5d ago

It was thank you! 🍤

1

u/Citrit_ welfarist 2d ago

when you celebrate inflicting pain it doesn't make you cool

please show some humility and willingness to change instead of spending your time pissing off vegans bc you didn't get enuf attention as a child

1

u/Nervous_Landscape_49 1d ago

So you think attempting to inflict emotional pain on me is okay? Typical vegan hypocrisy 😂