The three most important win-win-win measures

[Earthheart]

@andros

So…because some individual members of H. sap. are approximately as sentient as a cow, that creates an ethical equivalence between humans as a species and cows as a species?

Nah, not buying that one.

why are you not buying it? If you don’t buy it, you have to point at a morally relevant difference between those humans and cows. And species membership is not relevant, because it is arbitrary, because you could equally use population (race) membership, genus membership, order membership, class membership or any other taxonomic membership.

[Earthheart]

@msmith537

How do you define “better”? I like meat. My world isn’t better if I can’t eat meat.

it is better overall, from an impartial point of view, because the suffering of animals in factory farms is worse than your suffering of eating delicious vegan food instead of meat.

There is no such thing as a “win-win” measure. I don’t know what “win-win-win” means, but the term “win-win” implies a deal or decision where both sides benefit. Some of your economic proposals definitely have a negative economic impact associated with them. A “green tax” on resources and carbon emissions doesn’t necessarily equate to a “more efficient economy” or “more jobs”.

combined with a decrease in labour tax it does. With a tax on labour, there is an economic efficiency loss, called a deadweight loss. A tax on natural resources does not have such a deadweight loss.

But there are also unintended consequences. A tax on resources or production means goods and services would become more expensive. That disproportionally affects low income people.

Not if the tax revenues are distributed as a basic income, because low income people have a lower share in the use of scarce resources and hence pay a lower tax, but still receive an equal amount of basic income.

[Earthheart]

@Fenris

Bwah? Are you really intending to say that a mentally disabled child is morally equivalent to a chicken? And that “no-one” is able to dispute that difference?

If you can point at a morally relevant difference, go ahead. If you succeed, you will be the firsrt one, and that will be a major discovery.

[Smapti]

@Earthheart

why are you not buying it? If you don’t buy it, you have to point at a morally relevant difference between those humans and cows.

The morally relevant difference between humans and cows is that humans are not cows. Cows are not sapient. Even the most developmentally disadvantaged human being is far more aware of their existence and mortality, and more capable of understanding and philosophizing about it, and capable of exercising free will, than the most genetically perfect cow in the world will ever be.

And species membership is not relevant, because it is arbitrary

Bull. A species, at least on the higher level, is defined as that population of organisms which are capable of mating and producing offspring that are of the same nature as themselves. Two humans can breed and produce a human child. A human cannot breed with an orangutan, or a cow, or a pig.

because you could equally use population (race) membership

Double bull. Race != species.

[Earthheart]

@Telemark

Sure they can. Pigs, cows, and chickens aren’t human. It may not be a convincing argument to you but it is to a majority of folks. If you plan on handwaving it away you’re not going to get anywhere.

Of course it is not convincing, because a reference to being human is arbitrary. You can also refer to race (X, Y and Z aren’t white), gender (X, Y and Z aren’t male), order (X, Y and Z aren’t primate), class (X, Y and Z aren’t mammal), phylum (X, Y and Z aren’t vertebrate) or whatever. Why do you pick the species homo sapiens and not one of the many other possible taxonomic groups?

[Itself]

@Sailboat

I’m sure you do. Jeffrey Dahmer liked eating people. “Liking” or “wanting” something is no moral justification.

You know who also liked to make patently ridiculous statements like that? Hitler.

[Czarcasm]

@Earthheart

If you can point at a morally relevant difference, go ahead. If you succeed, you will be the firsrt one, and that will be a major discovery.

Easy. If you are forced to chose between eating a nice, fat baby and a chicken to stay alive, which would you choose?

[Smapti]

@Earthheart

If you can point at a morally relevant difference, go ahead. If you succeed, you will be the firsrt one, and that will be a major discovery.

I have personally known a person who was deaf and blind from birth and who has no meaningful way of communicating with any other human being. He is completely incapable of living on his own and requires 24-hour supervision, because he is unable to feed or bathe himself, go to the bathroom on his own, or in any way function as a member of society.

He is, nonetheless, far more intelligent, interesting, and deserving of protection and mercy than a chicken would ever be, and you insult him and all other people like him by comparing them to livestock.

I suspect that you don’t have much experience with developmentally impaired humans or with food animals.

[iiandyiiii]

@Earthheart

If you can point at a morally relevant difference, go ahead. If you succeed, you will be the firsrt one, and that will be a major discovery.

It’s morally relevant to me. It may not be too you, but so what? Moral systems rely on shared assumptions, and while yours may include “animals are equivalent to people”, mine does not. There’s nothing superior intrinsically about yours.

[Earthheart]

@iiandyiiii

There is a “morally relevant” difference, at least to most people – humans are people and animals aren’t.

that is not valid, because you could also say that simians are people and non-simians aren’t or that white humans are people and the others aren’t, or that mammals are people… What counts as people?

As for the “everyone and everything in the universe”, this is just kind of ridiculous, considering the countless small organisms that are killed each moment by the very basics of human activity. Everyone draws the line somewhere, and “human” seems as good a place to me as “mammal” or “vertebrate” or “multicellular”.

no, I do not draw any line. All lines, such as “human” or “mammal”, are arbitrary. Yes I kill bacteria and plants (countless small organisms), but I do not violate their right not to be used as a means against their will, because those bacteria do not even have a will, because they do not have brains. Whatever we do, we automatically respect their right not to be treated (killed, used) against their will. You cannot do something against the will of an antity that does not have a will, like you cannot kill an entity that is not alive.

[Earthheart]

@Czarcasm

(emphasis mine)If you are going to make incredibly silly(and demonstrably wrong) statements like these, then you might have some problems convincing anyone here.

why is it silly and demonstrably wrong if no-one is able to point at a mental capacity that all mentally disabled humans possess but none of the chickens and cows possess?

[Itself]

@msmith537

How do you define “better”? I like meat. My world isn’t better if I can’t eat meat. There is no such thing as a “win-win” measure. I don’t know what “win-win-win” means, but the term “win-win” implies a deal or decision where both sides benefit. Some of your economic proposals definitely have a negative economic impact associated with them. A “green tax” on resources and carbon emissions doesn’t necessarily equate to a “more efficient economy” or “more jobs”. It equates to companies absorbing the costs of externalities such as pollution or resource depletion. Those things do have benefits. But there are also unintended consequences. A tax on resources or production means goods and services would become more expensive. That disproportionally affects low income people.

Yup. I don’t have anything to add to this, beyond suggesting again that suggesting that the ideas in the OP are going to fix everything and move us all into some sort of perfect utopia, then I’d like to see some data or models indicating that (1) the dire predictions of the OP are reasonable; (2) the measures in the OP would have the beneficial effects listed; and (3) the measures in the OP won’t have any detrimental side effects.

If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the ideas of the OP in moral terms, then please indicate why I should care about your particular framework or morality or ethics, as opposed to one based on utilitarianism, consequentialism, human (possibly as opposed to animal) rights, some sort of individualism, etc.

(I suppose I do, in fact, have a bit to add to this. But it’s still more or less my position on the matter as well.)

[Czarcasm]

Earthheart, how intelligent do you think a chicken actually is, and how developmentally disabled do you think a human being would have to be to have the equivalent intelligence of an average chicken?

[Earthheart]

@davida03801

Why do you insist to enforce your ideals and values on me ?

You sound like you would be Pol Pot, if you ever got dictator power. Herd everyone out of the cities and into the villages to raise all the food and anyone who disagrees with you rounded up and taken to the killing fields.

that sounds like a straw man
But if you eat meat, you enforce your ideals and values on someone else (an animal), and that means that you say that enforcing values on others is ok. So in that case you cannot complain if someone enforces his values on you

[Czarcasm]

@Earthheart

that sounds like a straw man
But if you eat meat, you enforce your ideals and values on someone else (an animal), and that means that you say that enforcing values on others is ok. So in that case you cannot complain if someone enforces his values on you

You have put the cart before the horse, because your premise is only valid if we accept your condition that all animals are the equivalent of people. You have to convince of this first, got it?

[sleestak]

@Earthheart

that sounds like a straw man
But if you eat meat, you enforce your ideals and values on someone else (an animal), and that means that you say that enforcing values on others is ok. So in that case you cannot complain if someone enforces his values on you

Animals don’t have values so it is impossible to force ones values upon an animal. If you don’t believe me, go find a hungry tiger and try convincing the tiger that everyone has a right to live. I suspect you will fail with some spectacular results. Well spectacular for anyone who might be watching.

Do yourself a favor, go read ‘The Ultimate Resource’ and put down whatever doom and gloom books you have been reading. I suspect there is a Paul Erhlich book in there somewhere. And note that the Malthusian folks have been consistently wrong.

Slee

[JRDelirious]

@Czarcasm

You have put the cart before the horse, because your premise is only valid if we accept your condition that all animals are the equivalent of people. You have to convince of this first, got it?

@iiandyiiii

It’s morally relevant to me. It may not be too you, but so what? Moral systems rely on shared assumptions, and while yours may include “animals are equivalent to people”, mine does not. There’s nothing superior intrinsically about yours.

Seconded on both accounts.

May a vegan diet/lifestyle be better for the environment and for everyone’s health? Could be! But that every life-form with a CNS is equal in rights to humans? Not self-evident.

[Earthheart]

@Blaster_Master

You’re making an argument that these are the three most important measures, why? How are they more important than other factors that would better the world? Can’t some of these things, particularly actions on limiting population and reducing our energy footprint be done in ways other than what you suggest?

Possibly, but I am not aware of any other measure with that many benefits.

I’d really like to see some cites for a lot of these claims. For instance, Vegans have a lower risk of chronic diseases than… who? Compared to a generic American diet, sure I can believe that, but what about a diet rich in fruits and vegetables with appropriate portions of meat?

for references, see REDACTED
and
REDACTED
Veganism has benefits compared to current average diet, indeed. A diet with small amount of animal products might be as healthy as a vegan diet.

Further, you fail to mention any of the health issues associated with Veganism, only the benefits. For instance, while it is possible to get all the essential amino acids on a vegan diet, it is more difficult, and many vegans struggle to do so.

It is possible to get all essential nutrionts with a well-planned vegan diet, and you avoid the unhealthy things like saturated fats

Also, as mentioned upthread, strictly speaking, veganism cannot feed more people. Yes, in general, the resources per calorie in meat is much higher, but there are significant portions of land where farming is simply impractical, but perhaps where goats, sheep, or other livestock can graze. The efficiency is lower there, but because it’s otherwise useless land, it’s still best to get meat, dairy, or eggs out of that land. This is similarly true for fishing, we’re not going to extract calories any other way meaningfully from our oceans, lakes, and rivers.

we do not need that grazing land. A worldwide vegan diet is possible with the current area of cropland. All the grazing land can become wildlife habitat.
If you can read Dutch: figure 1 page 22 http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500110004.pdf

I do absolutely agree with issues regarding animal suffering, but asking people not to eat meat isn’t a reasonable solution to the problem because, well, most of us aren’t willing to give up meat.

it is about steps to decrease meat consumption. But if you are not willing to do something that is beneficial for your health, the health of others, the lives of animals, biodiversity,…

And I, like many other meat eaters, and not driven by any sort of moral arguments that it’s “wrong” to eat meat, as we evolved as such. In fact, I think it’s unlikely we’d be as smart and as dominant as we are now had we not evolved to eat meat.

that is not morally relevant because we have to look at the situation now, and now we can eat vegan without running a risk of becoming less smart.
It is the invention of cooking and the use of fire, rather than meat, that helped in our brain development.

In most developed countries, we already have cheap, high quality contraceptives. Look at the fertility rates in developed countries, many are below replacement levels, in many cases well below.

family planning is most important in the developing countries, because 80 million women have unwanted pregnancies each year.

Overpopulation just isn’t that much of an issue because of this, and the lesser developed nations have much bigger issues, like getting proper nutrition, education, and health care to poorer parts of the world and improving human rights.

but family planning is one of the most cost efficient methods to improve health (quality adjusted life years) in poor countries. With roughly 5000$ investment in family planning, you can save a complete healthy life.

Telling them to have less babies and giving them birth control isn’t going to fix their immediate problems,

family planning is not about telling someone to have less babies. It is about giving women the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

and people living in extreme poverty are going to care about 20 or 30 years in the future if they can’t feed themselves now,

and with unwanted pregnacies there will be unintended births and hence more mouth to feed.

and in many cases will hurt them in the shorter term because having children can help improve the lives of those struck by extreme poverty.

the economic studies point at the fact that unwanted pregnancies do not improve lives of the extremely poor. GDP per capita decreases.

The real question we should be asking is why birth rates are lower in developed countries, why are people CHOOSING to have fewer children? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you give people birth control if they’re unwilling or unable to use it.

200 million women say they do not want to get pregnant the next few years, but they lack access to means of family planning. Those women are willing to use it if it was available.

A lot of assertions here with little substance, even your one link you provide has a lot of subjective words in here like income from owning a resource is “undeserved”

because you did not produce that resource, you did not invest in it, you did not run a risk,…

or that the wealth of previous generations “belongs to the community”.

indeed, it doesn’t belong to only one individual. You cannot claim all that wealth. No-one can.

How exactly to you plan to implement these sorts of taxes in a way that’s remotely feasible?

a gradual tax shift. A lot of countries did tax shifts in the past.

I also find it interesting that there’s cites for the other two sections of your link, but absolutely none for this last section because, quite frankly, it seems to fly in the face of pretty much all economic theory I’m familiar with.

such as? It is completely in line with basic welfare economy, market economy,…

So we’re going to tax natural resources and provide goods, services, and a basic income to everyone. That sounds nice in theory, but it’s justified that taxation on labor is basically theft. Okay, but how do we take these resources currently owned by individuals or corporations and give them back to everyone but by taking it from them?

everyone who owns resources has to pay taxes. Those taxes equal the economic rent of the resource.

If we don’t take it from them, we’ll have to generate a HUGE sum of money to purchase it, but why would they sell when all the wealth they accumulate will just get taken from them when they die anyway? In short, what’s the incentive for the wealthy to buy into this system, because they sure as hell won’t do it voluntarily.

This I don’t understand
Of course I understand that the landlords and others who possess a lot of natural resources, and the people who pollute a lot, do not want to pay taxes. So they are the losers. But that is fairness: the ones who are rich due to undeserved income should support the poor.

And for the working class, the idea of a basic income is great, but what’s then their incentive to work for a corporation?

if they want to earn more, above the basic income. What is your incentive to work more than you need in order to buy some basic needs?

The taxation on the resources will presumably go as high as the market will bear, which increases people’s basic income, which reduces their desire to work, which reduces the ability of corporations to develop those resources,

which means the resources become less valuable, which means basic income decreases. In the end, the market will set the level of resources that will be developed. If there is a high demand for developed resources, the market will follow and work will increase.

which reduces their ability to pay that, which means everyone’s basic income is reduced forcing them to work. When you really work all this out, it seems to be shifting the tax burden to the corporations, but it’s far more regressive than that.

yes, corporations will pay a lot of resource taxes, instead of paying a lot of labour taxes.

What’s going to stop corporations from doing price fixing on various resources? If the large corporations buy up the significant portions of resources and collude to keep prices low

they can’t collude to keep taxes low. On the contrary: the more resources they buy, the higher the demand the higher the market value (economic rent) of the resources and hence the higher the tax.

In short, this whole system stinks of communism, and it will get exploited by the wealthy and powerful just as it was historically.

it has nothing to do with communism. It is simply a tax shift, taxing bads instead of goods. It corresponds with georgism. Georgism - Wikipedia

[Earthheart]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Win-win implies pareto optimal outcomes. That there is no downside. I don’t think this is the case for all of your proposals.

I didn’t say there is no downside. The losers are
-people who prefer meat instead of delicious vegan alternatives
-religious people who are against contraceptives
-landlords and people who possess a lot of natural resources
-big polluters
-…

The loss of those losers does not trump the benefits of all the winners.

[Earthheart]

@Tamerlane

Humans as a whole are quite incapable of constructing a coherent ethical system without arbitrariness and inconsistencies. As evidence I point to…everything. Utopias are doomed to failure by the inherent bundle of contradictions that is humanity.

we can construct coherent systems, see e.g. my PhD thesis REDACTED
we can strive to become more rational and avoid moral illusions.