So, for a while now I've on and off experimented with what I call the Pescetarian Preference diet, which despite the name is more of an "eat the stupidest animal on the menu" diet than anything else. Basically it meant that if I the option to choose what kind of meat I would eat, it would be from the least sentient animal that was on the menu. Usually this meant that the preference would go something like:

Crustaceans > Fish > Chicken > Lamb > Beef > Pork

With the idea that I'd much rather eat a crab than a pig. I justified it on the perhaps rather naive view that what mattered most was the relative sentience of the creature I was eating, and the assumption that more primitive animals like crustaceans probably suffered significantly less than say, a pig who could pass the mirror test.

But recently after reading several of Brian Tomasik's essays on animal suffering, in particular the one about suffering per kg, I am now seriously reconsidering my ideas, and flirting with the idea of going altogether Vegan. I hadn't previously thought to really calculate out the amount of suffering in such a detailed fashion as Brian's essay does, and I find his general argument to be quite persuasive. The only thing that I might disagree with is over his choice to make all animal suffering equal, when I would probably weigh them according to relative sentience. Regardless though, his argument forces me to consider things I hadn't before.

At the very least, it no longer seems that I can simply prefer less sentient food without factoring in the amounts of suffering and the fact that smaller creatures are more numerous and all these considerations. In other words, I can no longer be confident in my Pescetarian Preference diet being just a little more moral than any other meat eating diet. In fact, if Brian's calculations are correct, my deliberate choice of fish and crustaceans over birds and mammals may have actually been worse. Now it is possible that if you factor in the weight of relative sentience, that the calculations conform more closely to the hierarchy of sentience. But it doesn't change the fact that some amount of severe animal suffering is associated with any sort of meat consumption. I also have to thank Brian's many other articles on suffering that were quite illuminating. While I still lean towards positive utilitarianism intellectually, I now sympathize a lot more with the negative utilitarian's concern for suffering. Thus, to err on the safe side, it seems like going Vegan might simply be the most morally responsible choice.

When I was a kid, I had I strong tendency to prefer meat over vegetables, to the extent that my family would joke that I was a carnivore. But these days I tend to eat mostly vegetables for health reasons anyway, so the possibility of going Vegan isn't as extreme as it used to seem to me. I guess I just have to get over the selfish pleasure I get from eating meat, put my money where my mouth is quite literally, and choose to do the right thing.

Do people here agree that Veganism is more moral than the Pescetarian Preference diet I've outlined?

I'd also like some advice on how difficult it will be to switch over to Veganism? Are there any particular hazards that I should be aware of when considering the jump?

I should also say that even with my earlier Pescetarian Preference diet, I held onto a "Paris exception" of sorts in that if I was being fed food by my family or host, then I would, for the sake of not making a big scene, I would eat what was provided to me without complaint. Should I maintain this exception, and be Vegan primarily in my private choices, or should I be more public and be absolutely Vegan, in order to raise awareness of its morality and best represent it to others?

Also, in situations where nothing on the menu is vegan or vegetarian, does the Pescetarian "stupider animal" Preference still have any merit at all as a heuristic, or should I be relying on Brian's chart to determine how I should rank possibilities? How would Brian's chart change if we did weigh these animals by their relative sentience, say by neuron count?

We meet again, Darklight. I seem to be continually starting threads without finishing them, but maybe it can all be sorted out after the rapture.

Darklight wrote:I also have to thank Brian's many other articles on suffering that were quite illuminating. While I still lean towards positive utilitarianism intellectually, I now sympathize a lot more with the negative utilitarian's concern for suffering. Thus, to err on the safe side, it seems like going Vegan might simply be the most morally responsible choice.

^_^

Darklight wrote:Do people here agree that Veganism is more moral than the Pescetarian Preference diet I've outlined?

Yes, at least prima facie. The harder question is how hard it would be to switch. It seems worth making an effort and seeing how it goes. If it fails, you can always relax your standards somewhat.

Also, if pure veganism is hard, you could relax on dairy. For instance, it can be a lot of work to avoid trace amounts of butter, cheese, etc., and the benefit is pretty small.

Darklight wrote:I'd also like some advice on how difficult it will be to switch over to Veganism? Are there any particular hazards that I should be aware of when considering the jump?

The main thing vegans need to worry about is B12 supplementation. I personally don't worry about anything else, but I am not a licensed source of dietary advice. : P Fortunately, the Internet has no shortage of how-to guides on veganism. One that comes to mind is "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating," but there are countless more.

Darklight wrote:"Paris exception"

You come up with good names.

Darklight wrote:Should I maintain this exception, and be Vegan primarily in my private choices, or should I be more public and be absolutely Vegan, in order to raise awareness of its morality and best represent it to others?

You might play it by ear depending on the context.

As far as the direct impact, that depends somewhat on whether the food is already prepared or whether it's going to be prepared in the future, although leaving more leftovers for other people may mean they eat those leftovers rather than buy new meat, so it could make a difference there too. Eating food that will be thrown out otherwise has no causal impact.

As far as indirect impact, I think being veg at meals can be one of the best parts of the whole ordeal, because it's an excuse to talk about animal suffering and may encourage others to follow you or just to care about animals more in general because they see your passion. That said, if you think the audience would be offended or otherwise react badly, you might not bring it up then.

Darklight wrote:Also, in situations where nothing on the menu is vegan or vegetarian, does the Pescetarian "stupider animal" Preference still have any merit at all as a heuristic, or should I be relying on Brian's chart to determine how I should rank possibilities?

Well, I'd recommend my chart. However, I think climate-change impacts are nontrivial as well, and that militates against beef/pork/lamb. Generally a cheese sandwich or salad is a decent option. (When I was in Munich in Jan. 2012, they had basically no vegan protein in the shops, and I didn't have access to a supermarket, so I survived on cheese sandwiches.)

Emotionally I feel worst thinking about people eating shrimp, prawn, sardines, and other small seafood because of how many animals are involved.

Darklight wrote:How would Brian's chart change if we did weigh these animals by their relative sentience, say by neuron count?

You could try those calculations, though I think raw neuron count is not the right measure because small brains are really efficient and impressive for their size. A human has ~100,000 times more neurons than a cockroach, but intuitively I feel like a cockroach should count as like 0.01 human. In that case, a measure like (neuron count)^(2/5) might be more in line with my intuitions.

Yes, at least prima facie. The harder question is how hard it would be to switch. It seems worth making an effort and seeing how it goes. If it fails, you can always relax your standards somewhat.

Also, if pure veganism is hard, you could relax on dairy. For instance, it can be a lot of work to avoid trace amounts of butter, cheese, etc., and the benefit is pretty small.

Hmm, good to know.

The main thing vegans need to worry about is B12 supplementation. I personally don't worry about anything else, but I am not a licensed source of dietary advice. : P Fortunately, the Internet has no shortage of how-to guides on veganism. One that comes to mind is "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating," but there are countless more.

Thanks for the link and the advice!

You come up with good names.

I can't take credit for that one, it's actually Peter Singer's (technically he called it the "Paris exemption").

You could try those calculations, though I think raw neuron count is not the right measure because small brains are really efficient and impressive for their size. A human has ~100,000 times more neurons than a cockroach, but intuitively I feel like a cockroach should count as like 0.01 human. In that case, a measure like (neuron count)^(2/5) might be more in line with my intuitions.

The ^(2/5) seems kind of arbitrary. I think it might make more sense to replace it with some kind of ratio of the measure of how sophisticated the structures in the brains are. So for instance, we could count the number of unique brain or brain-like structures/regions like the cerebellum, the hippocampus, etc. While humans do have more of these structures/regions than a cockroach, I would guess the difference to be well within an order of magnitude.

This suggests that insects have about six brain-like structures in their bodies. In comparison, a human brain can easily be divided into twelve structures. That makes the ratio (1/2), so it could go something like:

Human: 85,000,000,000 neurons ^ (1/2) = 291548

Cockroach: 1,000,000 neurons ^ (1/2) = 1000

Human / Cockroach ratio = 292

So if my math is not mistaken, this would mean that 1 human would be worth 292 cockroaches. I don't know how I feel about being worth 292 cockroaches. XD

"eat the stupidest animal on the menu" diet

I did this for a little while, but I noticed a problem.

If you believe that larger animals are more sentient, then the appropriate response is to eat the small ones. If you think they're all equally sentient, then the appropriate response is to eat the large ones. Except with this system, if people disagree (which they do), you'll end up with half the people eating just large animals and half eating just small ones, which is really bad regardless of which you believe.

I suggest sticking to medium-sized animals instead.

I think it might make more sense to replace it with some kind of ratio of the measure of how sophisticated the structures in the brains are.

Using your method, and comparing humans and cockroaches to a hypothetical being with one neuron and one structure, we get:

Human: 85,000,000,000 neurons ^ (1/12) = 8.14

Human / Neuron ratio = 8.14

Cockroach: 1,000,000 neurons ^ (1/6) = 10

Cockroach / Neuron ratio = 10

A human is apparently worth less than a cockroach.

More importantly, these ratios are inconsistent. I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a different ratio for every third animal I compare.

I did this for a little while, but I noticed a problem.

If you believe that larger animals are more sentient, then the appropriate response is to eat the small ones. If you think they're all equally sentient, then the appropriate response is to eat the large ones. Except with this system, if people disagree (which they do), you'll end up with half the people eating just large animals and half eating just small ones, which is really bad regardless of which you believe.

I suggest sticking to medium-sized animals instead.

Somehow I don't think that will satisfy either side either. I guess the only solution is to go Vegan! Though figuring how the preferences when I don't have a choice but to choose some kind of meat should go would still require some kind of hierarchy...

Edit: Actually, you know what would work? Finding some big, dumb animal that had very few neurons per kg, like say, a Giant Lobster (lobsters in general have as many neurons as a fruit fly but are obviously much bigger) or Giant Crab. XD

Using your method, and comparing humans and cockroaches to a hypothetical being with one neuron and one structure, we get:

Human: 85,000,000,000 neurons ^ (1/12) = 8.14

Human / Neuron ratio = 8.14

Cockroach: 1,000,000 neurons ^ (1/6) = 10

Cockroach / Neuron ratio = 10

A human is apparently worth less than a cockroach.

More importantly, these ratios are inconsistent. I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a different ratio for every third animal I compare.

Mmm... I didn't mean a neuron to structure ratio. More structures should actually count for more, rather than less. It's the relative structure ratio between the two species that I was trying to compare.

Somehow I don't think that will satisfy either side either.

It comes most of the way toward satisfying each side. That wouldn't completely satisfy either side, but nothing short of going full vegan would.

Mmm... I didn't mean a neuron to structure ratio. More structures should actually count for more, rather than less. It's the relative structure ratio between the two species that I was trying to compare.

If I was reading your method right, the ratio you calculate is the neuron ratio raised to the power of the structure ratio, which is what I did.

Come to think of it, in your calculations, structure is counting for less. You could fix that by flipping the numerator and the denominator, but you'll still get different answers.

I do not recommend pulling equations out of nowhere like that. There's a few simple equations that model stuff well and come up a lot, so people use those a lot. They're on par with pulling numbers from nowhere. If you just make up your own equation, it won't work out so well.

If I was reading your method right, the ratio you calculate is the neuron ratio raised to the power of the structure ratio, which is what I did.

Come to think of it, in your calculations, structure is counting for less. You could fix that by flipping the numerator and the denominator, but you'll still get different answers.

I do not recommend pulling equations out of nowhere like that. There's a few simple equations that model stuff well and come up a lot, so people use those a lot. They're on par with pulling numbers from nowhere. If you just make up your own equation, it won't work out so well.

Duly noted. It's late, and math is not my forte (despite being a comp sci). I'll look over the equation maybe tomorrow and see if I can make it work correctly.

Alright, I've given this a little more thought. So previously I said that:

More structures should actually count for more, rather than less. It's the relative structure ratio between the two species that I was trying to compare.

I am now revising that statement. More structures should actually count for less, because most of the structures of a given brain are specialized in some particular task. For instance, the Occipital Lobe deals mainly with visual information processing, and probably has nothing to do with our emotional response to pain. Thus, the more structures there are, the fewer neurons are actually devoted to the emotional response to pain, if we make the assumption that there is a particular structure that does that, rather than it being shared by all structures. I believe that this is a reasonable assumption to make, given our knowledge of neuroscience.

I had previously thought that more structures ought to mean more emotional response, but that was based on my prior comparison of Google's Cat Detector Neural Network, which had the same number of neurons as that of a snail. The snail has more structures, so the intuition is that more structures = more emotional response to pain. This I think is a mistaken intuition, because we could imagine a Pain Neural Network that had only one structure devoted to the emotional response to pain. The snail would then actually feel less pain than the Pain Neural Network, because it had fewer neurons devoted to it than a Pain Neural Network where all 16,000 neurons were devoted to pain response.

Thus, the better intuition is that more structures would actually lead to fewer neurons being devoted to emotional response to pain, due to specialization. This makes one important assumption, which is that there is approximately one main pain response area in the given brain. If there are zero, then the calculations will be off no matter what. And if there is more than one, then the calculations will be off to an extent proportional to how many regions are actually responsible for the emotional response to pain. This means that if there are, say, two regions out of 300, that our calculations will still probably be within the ballpark. Regardless, it's a rough approximation because in reality, not all structures have equal numbers of neurons anyway.

So what equation does this actually give us? It suggests that we should be looking at the number of neurons per structure, which is to say:

Human: 85,000,000,000 neurons / 12 structures = 7083333333 neurons per structure

Cockroach: 1,000,000 neurons / 6 structures = 166667 neurons per structure

Human / Cockroach = 42500

Of course, this is based on 12/6 ratio of structures. It's quite possible to divide the human brain into many more structures, or to only count the actual "brain" of the cockroach, rather than also the ganglions. For instance, if we go by this division, and count all the leaf nodes, we have something like approximate 300 labeled structures in the human brain.

Human: 85,000,000,000 neurons / 300 structures = 283333333 neurons per structure

Cockroach: 1,000,000 neurons / 3 structures = 333333 neurons per structure

Human / Cockroach = 850

Given that the cockroach probably doesn't have just one structure that specializes in emotional pain response, but again, it's an approximation to try and capture the magnitude of the difference that we're interested in mostly. And to think of it probabilistically, the cockroach has only a few structures, so each is more likely to be involved in the emotional pain response. Conversely, the human brain has many structures, so the probability that each structure is involved in the emotional pain response is much lower.

Technically, this equation actually has another term that right now is assumed to be 1, which is the number of structures involved in pain.

The equation therefore, is actually:

# of Neurons / # of Structures x # of Pain Structures

Where Pain Structures is the estimated number of structures involved in the emotional response to pain. Right now, because the estimate is 1, it effectively cancels out. Note that if the number of Pain Structures equals the number of structures, they effectively cancel out and we have just the number of neurons again. Note also that if there are zero pain structures, like in the case of an object recognition neural network, then the whole thing goes to zero, which makes sense.

Also, it should be obvious that the # of Pain Structures is equal to the probability that a structure is associated with pain, times the number of structures. So for instance, if we have three structures, and we think one of them is the pain structure, then the probability is 33.3%, and 33.3% x 3 = 1.

Hopefully I got the math right this time.

Shouldn't it just be that you count the neurons in whatever structures respond to pain?

Shouldn't it just be that you count the neurons in whatever structures respond to pain?

As I quoted in another thread here, according to my textbooks from the courses Brain & Behaviour I, and Sensation & Perception, there is conflicting data on what actual structures respond to pain. It seems like there are certain areas that reliably respond to pain, yet when you remove them, it doesn't change the response to pain. So it's not 100% clear what structures are responding to the pain itself, or are lighting up because of other associations.

If we just want to focus on the area that seems to control the emotional response to pain, that would be the anterior cingulate cortex. Good luck finding data on the actual neuron count of the anterior cingulate cortex in humans, much less equivalents in other species. Since the overall number of neurons is much easier to find, I decided to approximate it using the data available.

But yes, if we could actually count the neurons that respond to pain, or even just the neurons in the structures that respond most often to pain, that would probably be the best way. The problem is that when you're running a PET scan or an fMRI, there's a lot of other activity that goes on because consciousness. So it can be difficult to separate the signal from the noise.

In general, those number of neuron counts are already extrapolations and approximations anyway, so we can't expect to get a very high accuracy number regardless. I'm just trying to find a ballpark figure we can use to estimate the suffering per kg, weighted by sentience.

Speaking of which, a possible means of comparing different animal options would be neurons per structure per kg. Actually, given how hard it is to find good data on the number of structures, and given how we're trying to rank animals relatively, it seems like neurons per kg of meat may be a reasonable approximation of an approximation. At the very least, it would still weigh eating a single Giant Lobster as causing less suffering than eating many smaller lobsters, given their brains had the same number of neurons.

It is surprisingly hard to even find general neuron counts for different types of animals that are typically on the menu. This seems like a really simple thing to do research on though for some aspiring neuroscientist. Unfortunately, I'm in the wrong field.

Darklight wrote:But recently after reading several of Brian Tomasik's essays on animal suffering, in particular the one about suffering per kg, I am now seriously reconsidering my ideas, and flirting with the idea of going altogether Vegan. I hadn't previously thought to really calculate out the amount of suffering in such a detailed fashion as Brian's essay does, and I find his general argument to be quite persuasive.

I too was very impressed to find that. It made me give up on eggs after seeing how important eggs are, but it also made me choose not to give up on milk. So I've been a no-eggs vegetarian or milk-drinking/leather-wearing vegan or what not. I might consider either giving up milk or adding beef in the future, but I like where I am diet-wise at the moment. Works pretty well for me.

~

Darklight wrote:Do people here agree that Veganism is more moral than the Pescetarian Preference diet I've outlined?

It would be utilitarian-moral in the sense that less suffering would come out of veganism than your PPD, yes.

~

Darklight wrote:I'd also like some advice on how difficult it will be to switch over to Veganism? Are there any particular hazards that I should be aware of when considering the jump?

I don't think it's too difficult if you take gradual steps. First give up chicken and fish. Then wait a few weeks and give up beef. Then wait a few more weeks and give up eggs. Then wait a few more weeks and give up milk for soy milk and a vitamin B12 supplement. Make sure that throughout you're watching your nutrition, etc. Be smart.

~

Darklight wrote:I held onto a "Paris exception" of sorts in that if I was being fed food by my family or host, then I would, for the sake of not making a big scene, I would eat what was provided to me without complaint. Should I maintain this exception, and be Vegan primarily in my private choices, or should I be more public and be absolutely Vegan, in order to raise awareness of its morality and best represent it to others?

I think it makes sense to be vegetarian in front of others and vegan in private. People seem to perceive vegans as unaccomodating, which could turn them off to the idea -- at least that's how it's been in my experience.

A "Paris exception" sounds fine if it would allow you to stay motivated, but if you can get away with not having it, it sounds better. Not for direct utilitarian reasons, but because the social value of avoiding moral hypocrisy is pretty high.

~

Darklight wrote:Also, in situations where nothing on the menu is vegan or vegetarian, does the Pescetarian "stupider animal" Preference still have any merit at all as a heuristic, or should I be relying on Brian's chart to determine how I should rank possibilities?

PPV has merit from neuron count, but I think Brian's chart is a better bet. Even better though would be, I think, to eat nothing if there is no vegetarian option. This kind of moral protest looks pretty good in the eyes of others if you pull it off right, I think.

...Generally, you should be avoiding these restaurants in the first place, if you can.

I think it makes sense to be vegetarian in front of others and vegan in private. People seem to perceive vegans as unaccomodating, which could turn them off to the idea -- at least that's how it's been in my experience.

Hmm, good to know.

A "Paris exception" sounds fine if it would allow you to stay motivated, but if you can get away with not having it, it sounds better. Not for direct utilitarian reasons, but because the social value of avoiding moral hypocrisy is pretty high.

Good point about the moral hypocrisy thing. Though the trouble not having it is dealing with, for instance, the situations where my family might insist on feeding me meat because they seem to think that non-meats are not a complete protein or something along those lines. I tried asking my dad the other day if we could at least reduce the meat consumption, but he insisted that nutrition-wise you need a minimal amount of animal product in your diet.

By the way, do you know if tofu/soy beans are a complete protein? There seems to be some conflicting information on that.

PPV has merit from neuron count, but I think Brian's chart is a better bet. Even better though would be, I think, to eat nothing if there is no vegetarian option. This kind of moral protest looks pretty good in the eyes of others if you pull it off right, I think.

...Generally, you should be avoiding these restaurants in the first place, if you can.

Yeah, it probably would. I actually mentioned I was considering going Vegan to a friend earlier and asked what she thought of Veganism, and she said it was a "noble self-sacrifice", so I can see this kind of symbolic gesture playing well to certain crowds.

I also talked to another friend of mine who's been Vegetarian all his life. He said that pretty much all the restaurants he's ever been to have had some Vegetarian option. Though he also said going full on Vegan is much more difficult than Vegetarianism, and he should know, given that he lives with a girl who's been Vegan for two years now.

Darklight wrote:Though the trouble not having it is dealing with, for instance, the situations where my family might insist on feeding me meat because they seem to think that non-meats are not a complete protein or something along those lines. I tried asking my dad the other day if we could at least reduce the meat consumption, but he insisted that nutrition-wise you need a minimal amount of animal product in your diet.

It seems like you're handling this situation right. While it would be nice to take a stand and you might win, a good compromise could work too, especially if your family follows suit. It's hard to say.

Darklight wrote:By the way, do you know if tofu/soy beans are a complete protein? There seems to be some conflicting information on that.

Not personally -- an an internet forum is probably a bad resource for this. My suspicion is that veganism is worse nutritionally than a diet with animal products, but not by enough to really matter much.

If you do trust resources pointed to you by random guys on the internet, I tend to like Jack Norris, a vegan dietician. He has some writings on this sort of thing.

Not personally -- an an internet forum is probably a bad resource for this. My suspicion is that veganism is worse nutritionally than a diet with animal products, but not by enough to really matter much.

If you do trust resources pointed to you by random guys on the internet, I tend to like Jack Norris, a vegan dietician. He has some writings on this sort of thing.

For random guys on the Internet, you all seem to be a pretty intelligent and moral bunch, at least compared to the average forum I've visited. Most people in the world don't even know what Utilitarianism is, much less have enough interest in it to post on a forum dedicated to it. So I think a forum like this self-selects pretty well for above average sources of information.

Thanks for the link!

Darklight wrote:For random guys on the Internet, you all seem to be a pretty intelligent and moral bunch, at least compared to the average forum I've visited. Most people in the world don't even know what Utilitarianism is, much less have enough interest in it to post on a forum dedicated to it. So I think a forum like this self-selects pretty well for above average sources of information.

Well, we may know a lot about utilitarianism, but you shouldn't assume we therefore also know a lot about nutrition, except insofar as we appear to you as a generally informed and evidence-based community.

Just be careful -- in my experiences, a lot of vegans are really bad at nutrition science. Luckily, I don't think any of those people bad at nutrition are here...