sonic_tower t1_jbui4n3 wrote

Never seen Tinbergen's questions applied to ethics before. Seems like a bit of a mismatch.

First off, we are presupposing that animal welfare is morally good and that what humans value should align with what nonhuman animals value. You could make a case that this is what ought to be right, but that's not the thesis of this paper.

Second, and closer to the paper's argument, it's weird to think an animal's values will align with Tinbergens questions (answers). For example, every animal wants to consume food, but not every animal values becoming fat. Fish don't value having gills. Answering these questions in a satisfying way would also introduce circular logic, or absurd answers, like fish value gills but arent aware of their values, and humans value fat but deny it if you ask them.

Big fan of the four questions, and of animal welfare, but this paper doesn't use the former to help the latter.


sonic_tower t1_j1hbyu2 wrote

American here.

You would think all the "preppers" would be ready for a snow storm. But they were too busy buying guns and researching bunker mansions online.

You can't shoot your way out of cold weather. A real prepper would have traded their guns for blankets, firewood, and potatoes.


sonic_tower t1_iscd3vp wrote


But actually horrible. 50 years on an ecological time scale is nothing. It isn't that a great collapse is coming soon. It is happening now. It's like we are on an airplane about to crash into the ground, except we have already crashed and in a snapshot, two thirds of the plane have made contact.