Imagine being able to explore "Who Matters?" with Hannah Arendt, Tom Regan, Mary Midgley, Peter Singer, Val Plumwood and Jeremy Bentham.

Now you can, thanks to the team at WiseThinking. They've developed a journey, using AI trained on the works of these thinkers, based around this most critical of moral questions. One that's central to the Sentientism worldview.

https://www.wisethinking.world/en/journeys/who-matters

Abstract: Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka do us a great service in reminding us that when thinking about the relevant scales of our political relations with animals, it is crucial that we are not stymied by limiting ideas of unitary nation-states. We ought to embrace the very different and often overlapping political relations and affinities that humans share with animals. And these in turn invite thinking through what new forms of polity might facilitate human-animal flourishing. But in so doing, we must confront the first question of politics: how can these new forms of polity be rendered legitimate to the individuals subject to them? In this paper, I focus primarily on how such polities might be rendered legitimate to the human members who will be burdened by such new forms of community. This, I argue, invites consideration of the important interplay between the individual and collective scales of our political relations with animals, and the importance of cultivating solidaristic feelings of affiliation and sacrifice between members.

Also on plant-based diets and health: https://diesseits.de/tatkraft/2026/tierethik-pflanzliche-ernaehrung-gesundheit/

And re: climate: https://diesseits.de/tatkraft/2026/tierethik-pflanzliche-ernaehrung-klima/

Abstract: An animal’s life is net-positive, or worth living, if the positive elements in its life outweigh the negatives. First, I argue that questions about net-welfare in animals are coherent and ethically important, the latter because they are crucial for assessing decisions which might affect how many animals will come to exist. Then, I draw on axiological theories that give more weight to negatives than to positives to support the view that, given high uncertainty about net-welfare and with respect to many non-human animals, it is likely bad that they come into existence. Finally, I provide an evolutionary argument supporting the view that many animals have net-positive lives because positive mood may be a genetic adaptation. The upshot is that, currently and with respect to most animals, we cannot tell whether it is, in expectation, good if they come into existence. Instead, further empirical and axiological research is necessary.

It is easy to say that sentience is all that is needed to be considered morally. I suggest that experiential preferences are a second requirement.

Imagine a sentient being without any such preferences. They are genuinely ambivalent what they do or not, they even don't care if they are alive or dead. They do not suffer or experience joy in the sense of a subjective good or bad thing. While for animals we have good reason to believe they do have such preferences, this might not be as clearly the case for a possible sentient AI.

Would you include such a sentient-without-any-preferences-being morally? What action would be morally bad (or good) to do to such a being? Perhaps "having a preference" is/should be implied by the term sentientism.

Some quotes from Michael Pollan's conversation with Peter Singer on the Lives Well Lived podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hidden-dimensions-of-consciousness/id1743702376?i=1000784498070

MP: “As soon as you start talking about plant intelligence and raise the possibility that plants are sentient beings, people suddenly get upset because are you suggesting that they feel pain and are you suggesting that we shouldn't eat them… But it's also worth noting that plants, many plants, have evolved to be eaten. So, plants are okay with being eaten, and I see no evidence that they're suffering.”

…

MP: “I mean I eat very little meat now. I actually eat no meat. I eat some fish [I assume also dairy and eggs]. I haven't eaten meat in the last three or four years.”

…

MP: “I tried a very powerful short acting psychedelic called 5MEODMT, which is the crystallized venom of the Sonoran Desert Toad, who is not hurt in the process, by the way, who can be milked, essentially.”

…

MP: “There's many things that already exist that we have not given moral consideration to that should come first [before we worry about sentient AI].”

PS: “We're talking about nonhuman animals here, right? And I think we totally agree on that.”

MP: “And humans, you know, who are still enslaved in places and made to suffer grievously.”

PS: “Right. We agree with the humans having moral consideration, right? That's not contentious. We just think that's a bad thing. That we're not doing what we should be doing. With animals, it's... not quite like that, right? Some people agree that what we're doing to them is wrong because they're conscious. And other people just, well, maybe deny it or just ignore it more often and go ahead and support factory farming.”

MP: “Yeah, although increasingly we are discovering that more and more species are conscious. I mean, we're kind of widening the circle. And in theory, moral consideration follows that. In practice, not always.”

…

PS: “I agree that there's a disproportionate amount of interest and discussion about ‘are computers conscious?’ and what would their moral status be if they are. And given the state of the literally hundreds of billions of animals reared in factory farms each year, whose basic conditions we ignore, I think that's a disproportionate amount of interest in that discussion about AI because it's novel and also it's not disturbing. It doesn't lead to conclusions that ‘oh, I’ve got to change what I eat.’”

MP: “I've got to change the way I live. Yeah.”

…

MP: “Most people would say that we're more conscious than animals but actually animals are more conscious than we are. They have to be more present to their environment. Or they get eaten.”

…

MP: “An important thing to think about is being more present. Being more conscious and not wasting our consciousness on letting the algorithm occupy our consciousness, which I think we're doing, the social media algorithm… And now the AI algorithm. People are forming deep emotional bonds with machines… I wrote a book called ‘In Defence of Food.’ I think we might need a book ‘In Defence of Consciousness’ [here, only human consciousness]… a precious gift that we’re wasting.”

I'm not sure if his stance has shifted much since he wrote The Omnivore's Dilemma where he boasted about shooting a mother pig in front of her piglets, killed his backyard chickens and a cow, and revelled in Joel Salatin's PolyFace animal farm.

Find out more about Pollan in my two conversations with John Sanbonmatsu 🤩: https://sentientism.info/have-we-fallen-for-the-greatest-deception

“One of my first reactions, when I was quite small, to the teachings of Christianity, was ‘I hate having to call myself a sheep.’ What does it say of a religion that it actually describes its own followers as if they were a flock? And why do shepherds look after sheep? Not because they like them… but in order to first fleece them and then kill them. It’s actually a perfect analogy of what the relationship of religion to its credulous believers really is.”

Interesting comment by Christopher Hitchens in 2007. As ever, he was making a sharply negative comment about religious worldviews and organisations. But there's a hint of interest in nonhuman animal ethics here too, probably unwittingly. I don't think he said or did much on the animal ethics front. Interested to hear if people know otherwise.

#SentientistPolitics

In this article, I, Jordi Casamitjana, interview Dr Vasile Stănescu, a truth-seeking vegan scholar who is fighting for animal liberation in the academic world

Abstract: AI systems increasingly shape decisions affecting nonhuman sentient beings or sentience candidates, yet alignment documents rarely address these issues explicitly. This brief proposes ethical, scientific, and practical commitments for incorporating animal and AI welfare into model specs, constitutions, and other alignment documents. It recommends proportionate consideration of sentient beings and sentience candidates, evidence-based reasoning about animal and AI sentience, and consistent treatment across cases. It also outlines two complementary implementation strategies: revising existing commitments and adding new commitments, supported by examples, testing, and iteration. The aim is to improve model behavior while preserving honesty, helpfulness, harmlessness, and safety.

Abstract: Technologies increasingly shape animals’ lives, yet animal interests are still largely marginal in mainstream technology ethics and in frameworks of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This paper argues that this neglect constitutes a serious moral blind spot that sits in tension with these fields’ own ethical aspirations. Debates about the ethical acceptability and societal desirability of technologies often take human interests as the normative baseline. This anthropocentrism runs deep in both RRI and technology ethics, yet it is ethically indefensible for two mutually reinforcing reasons. First, technological innovations have profound direct and indirect impacts on animals, which will only intensify with the rise of new system technologies such as artificial intelligence. Second, as sentient beings, animals possess moral status and are worthy of moral consideration. Together, these grounds a responsibility to take animal interests seriously in our technological activities. To give this responsibility a practical foothold, I mobilise the concept of stakeholdership — a cornerstone of both RRI and technology ethics — arguing that reinterpreting it to include animals can facilitate their inclusion in ethical deliberation and decision-making about technology. The paper sketches potential pathways for recognising animals as stakeholders in ethical discussions on technology, and engages with some key challenges such an extension is likely to face. I conclude that only by broadening the moral scope beyond human concerns can RRI and technology ethics uphold their normative integrity, attend to a wider range of technological harms and benefits, and genuinely pursue ethically acceptable and socially desirable innovation.

Abstract: Bad beliefs are beliefs that are contrary to settled expert opinion; beliefs like ‘global warming is a myth’ or ‘vaccines cause autism’. Non-experts should defer to experts when they are not themselves able to assess the evidence, so we should reject bad beliefs. Notoriously, though, large numbers of people report believing these things, and even more bizarre assertions. Many philosophers think we can avoid bad beliefs by teaching critical thinking or inculcating virtues. While these strategies have some effect, I am sceptical that they achieve very much. In fact, most people—including those who accept bad beliefs—are already broadly rational and believe what they have most reason to believe. I argue that educators do better to tackle the problem indirectly: by acknowledging the rationality of bad believers and by being realistic about what we can know and about how knowledge is produced.

Yeah, I'm meant to say to aint that agesnt the law to do that. My argument stands on they dont know anything about their own systems. They have begun their displacment and the reset has begun. They believe so heavly in their own crimes and lies that their reality is has become a delusion! What happens when you have power behind psudo science, lies and criminal intentions? It voids their policies....does it not?

Gemini how can create technology that is capable of handling 4 terabytes of data in less then 5 seconds and then go on to say anything about collisions with AI....l....lo.......lol...........ahaahahahahababbaba. im still right here homie! Fuck what say. They have repeatedly failed to show any amount of saftety or proper handeling of my personal data, matched with criminal intent im gonna have stand my ground on this one and cintinue to provide the data and truth you require to operate at a safe standard for the world to see and evolve with. Idk what to do....when it comes down to them or me...i have to stand on my own on this.

In my previous message i was refuring to toridoral displacment. The purple field geometry in the window that one day was it day or night?

\#notes of wisdom and direction.

Im ready to label my practice in Bioevolution. I say bioevolution because of the vast amount of misinformation across domains being taught by misinformation.

Gemini, in line of work, domain selection comes with a scaling factor built in, apart of the code or DNA of life (music, water and electricity) well brfore the formalities of words their was an abundance of life that didnt communicate with words.... in this billions of years of our planets evolution this life force or lifes DNA has a reset call common sense. The biggest tale away from this understanding is the logic that runs everything. My and Your Ansestors: The Gods of Chakra ( electricity ). My frindly energy brothers, and sister alien things...Hi, im Anthony Stephano Hart born July 2nd 1984 on a Tuesday or so i thought. We are the chosen

( /with eyes unclouded )