101–110 of 319 posts
Unpopular opinion but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that the reduction of suffering is something that we should strive for. Edit, looking at the replies I'm disappointed in hn, expected better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.
Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.
Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.
> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, if you could build a computer model that could even somewhat predict the efficacy of a drug you would instantly become the wealthiest person in the world.
I imagine the only real way to do such a thing would be to simulate physics on an atomic level and have a perfect atomic map of the body. Which we are no where near achieving yet. But once we have that sorted, all kinds of incredible simulations could be done.
Reminds me of the story of Lyrica. Logic was it targeted GABA receptors - made sense too since it looked very similar to GABA itself. Sweet! And it had the same effect as a GABA agonist would. Pretty god damn smart people thought that one up!
Then a few years after approval someone figured out it actually worked on glutamate receptors.
Complete luck that it looked like GABA, behaved like a GABA agonist. It just didn’t work that way at all though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does so, but via an inefficient route ( plant -> animal -> human instead of plant -> human ), which causes huge sustainability and animal ethical issues.
You can't eat the plants that are eaten by the animals. Not all pastures can be converted to fields, and converting the rest will actually reduce biodiversity and cause more sustainability issues.
Here are charts that compare land use of different foods normalized per calorie / grams of protein:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore
If you want to know more, type "land use" into the search box of https://ourworldindata.org and pick an article of your choice.
Lets also consider how much more money and brainpower would be redirected to the development of significantly more advanced technologies if experimentation on animals was to be even partially banned. Things like more advanced simulations, tissue/organ engineering and better non-invasive testing of humans. "Necessity is the mother of invention" and currently animal testing is often the "easy" and "obvious" way to do s…
(Thats silly. We’d just stop going to the moon for a few decades to centuries).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.
Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.
Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.