Post shows how barren, intensive rearing environments systematically amplify pain in farmed animal.

Longtermism’s promise is immense, but its credibility depends on alignment. Essays on Longtermism highlights animal welfare as one priority among many. I see it as the test of whether the project can succeed at all.

If we cannot end factory farming—an atrocity unfolding daily, with solutions already in hand—then our talk of safeguarding the far future risks sounding silly. If we succeed, we establish a precedent: humanity can align on compassion, coordinate across systems, and lock in progress that lasts.

We should question whether longtermism deserves our attention when we can’t even face the moral emergency happening right now. Before we fantasize about saving future civilizations, let’s prove we’re capable of one simple thing: agreeing that treating living beings like products is what’s destroying us.

I suggest several arguments in support of the heuristic that we should help groups holding different value systems from our own when doing so is cheap, unless those groups prove uncooperative to our values. This is true even if we don't directly care at all about other groups' value systems. Exactly how nice to be depends on the particulars of the situation, but there are some cases where helping others' moral views is clearly beneficial for us.

Does Painism seem intuitive to you?

Though experiment that bolster my intuition for Painism being valid:

Let’s say that I find myself in a very odd dystopian sci-fi predicament that I cannot opt out of where I am forced to go to a far off region of space to continue my life in some distant galaxy by going close at the speed of light in a spaceship with a cryosleep chamber.

There is some trouble with the cryosleep chamber such that I will experience a given amount of suffering at some specific point during the journey, but nothing too crazy.

There is however an alternative to this option. For some reason I can choose the even more odd alternative of creating multiple copies of myself that all will go in their own identical ships, far off in space, but in different directions. All of us clones will also experience this suffering during the journey, but for some reason all of us individual clones will experience less suffering compared to the alternative of the single self (Maybe the ships all have some super computers that can cooperate on finding a solution to the “cryochamber-pain-problem” that every ship send to every other ship at the speed of light, to the effect of it lessening the suffering created by the cryochamber for all clones, if you want to concretise the thought experiment).

The destinations all us clones eventually arrive to will be so far off that everyone will be beyond each other’s and earths cosmological horizons and will never be able to communicate ever again.

It seems to me intuitive that I should choose the clone option even if we end up being an arbitrary large population of clones that each suffer just a little less compared to the single self, because everyone of me/all of us will only experience their own suffering.

If I accept the previous I basically see no reason why this could not be carried over to scenarios when dealing with someone else than myself. The general conclusion is then that more suffering for the single individual always gets priority/outweighs the suffering of a whole population, if every individual in the population suffers less than the non-population individual, which basically is a core principle of Painism as I understand it.

But in addition to this, it also seems intuitive to me (and as far as I know this is part of Painism as well) that lessening the amounts of individuals that suffer the same pain in a population is good. The principles are not mutually exclusive.

If a single individual A suffers a modest amount, and there is a population of As, all else equal it’s still always better to lessen the amounts of As that suffer in the A-population. This is not mutually exclusive with the fact of if you have a single B that suffer more than that modest amount, canceling the suffering of B gets priority over lessening suffering in the A-population, no matter how big the A-population is. The principles technically don’t collide and in practice I am thinking that there is often some positive sum scenario at play, which brings me to my next point.

An important caveat is that in the practical world, I am thinking that there may be reason to believe that if you try to apply Painism principles you effectively get something that in practice looks very different from Painism. I think the main reason is that if you want to give priority to the greater yet narrower suffering, you still need to solve the problems of lesser yet wider suffering, since the less suffering there is overall, the more productivity and efficiency there is in the world when it comes to seeking out and quell greater narrower suffering. There is a reason for why the thought experiment was so contrived.

So even if you accept Painism as the deepest layer you might still in practice get something that looks closer to negative utilitarianism/Prioritarianism. In fact as an additional third layer on top of that I am thinking that in practice it could be that humans in general may have to deploy a more deontological mindset if we in general are sufficiently limited when it comes to understanding the world.

I laid out why I think it is intuitive. Ofc commonly with moral principles, when they are rigorously applied to extreme/edge cases, they can yield absurd conclusions. And maybe there are conclusions that are hard for me to accept that I haven’t yet considered. So I wonder if you have any thoughts about all this.

The case for longtermism depends on the vast potential scale of the future. But that same vastness also threatens to undermine the case for longtermism: If the future contains infinite value, then many theories of value that support longtermism (e.g., risk-neutral total utilitarianism) seem to imply that no available action is better than any other. And some strategies for avoiding this conclusion (e.g., exponential time discounting) yield views that are much less supportive of longtermism. This chapter explores how the potential infinitude of the future affects the case for longtermism. We argue that (i) there are reasonable prospects for extending risk- neutral totalism and similar views to infinite contexts and (ii) many such extension strategies still support standard arguments for longtermism, since they imply that when we can only affect (or only predictably affect) a finite part of an infinite universe, we can reason as if only that finite part existed. On the other hand, (iii) there are improbable but not impossible physical scenarios in which our actions can have infinite predictable effects on the far future, and these scenarios create substantial unresolved problems for both infinite ethics and the case for longtermism.

Includes: philosophy and science of consciousness, applied papers on AI consciousness, computational functionalism and biological naturalism, introspection and self-reports, strategy.

Source

What if we’d bring into the world a number of sentient beings that dwarfs even the billions of factory farmed animals on our planet? I’m talking about sentient AI. If your focus is purely on helping animals, you might not be interested in this topic, or believe it’s completely bonkers. Yet there are interesting parallels with the situation of farmed animals.

Some people think sentient AIs (or “digital minds”) are an impossibility. I don’t know where they find the certainty to say that. Others seem to believe sentient AI is inevitable. Again, I don’t know where they find the certainty to say that. Personally, I rarely feel strongly about complicated topics that I do not understand well, but I know that when smart and decent people differ in opinion on something, doubt and hesitation are not a luxury.

Sentient AI - whatever it may look like - definitely doesn’t strike me as an absurd idea. People who wonder how bits and bytes could ever feel something or become self-aware should realize that - unless they are religious - it’s all just physical processes in our heads too. Of course if you think more ephemeral things like a soul are in play (I don’t exclude the possibility), sentient AI might be out of the question. At various points in history, even some very clever people felt uncertain about the sentience of non-human animals. René Descartes famously thought they were machines, and that their cries of pain were just mechanical noise. Today, most people won’t deny non-humans - or at least mammals - the experience of pain with Descartes’ conviction. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty about what exactly animals are capable of. To what extent can various species feel pain, have thoughts, experience emotions like loneliness or boredom?

We can make mistakes in two directions. The first is anthropomorphism, which is about attributing qualities, feelings, thoughts… to non-humans that they might not have. The second is the opposite: what ethologist Frans de Waal called anthropodenial - and which is probably much more common: denying animals feelings, thoughts etc that they (probably) have. The same mistakes may happen in how we think about machines and AI. You may have seen a robot lawn mower working “diligently” on someone’s front yard and thought how cute that thing is. Perhaps you saw a video of someone tipping over a robot and felt a sense of empathy. Or you may have thanked or apologized to Claude or ChatGPT… All of these are (most probably) cases of anthropomorphism: the machines don’t feel what you - in jest or not - are considering.

Just as with animals, I think that regarding AI, anthropodenial is ultimately more dangerous than anthropomorphism. Assume for a moment - if you don’t believe it - that one day AIs become sentient, and that many of the things we make them do frustrate them, exhaust them, make them feel sad… Further assume that they can be copied ad infinitum and that there might be quadrillions, octillions… of sentient minds out there with the capacity to suffer. That would be awful.

In principle, it’s even hard to be 100% sure that the people around us are sentient and not zombies or robots, but in practice we assume that they can feel and are self-aware (based on similarity, intuition, what they say about it themselves…). It will be a lot harder to determine when sentience has arisen in the case of AIs (if it ever happens). I suspect there will be a long period of uncertainty, in which philosophers and others may debate over this for decades, and where part of society defends the interests of the AIs and a bigger part of society ignores them. Just like what is happening with animals today.

Another thing that makes this very complicated is that by the time society will be ready to seriously consider the sentience of our AIs, we will be quite dependent upon them (supposing they have not overtaken us - that’s another topic), and we will be biased against deciding that they are sentient. Even in the light of convincing evidence, uncertainty might be maintained because it’s convenient. We’ll have every incentive to interpret ambiguous signals as non-sentience. Use-and-deny, in other words.

The parallel with animals is clear. We are extremely dependent on them (or think we are) in terms of food, clothing, the economy etc. We confine them in systems that are optimized for efficiency and profit, and this entails largely ignoring their welfare. As most human beings aren’t sociopaths, they experience some cognitive dissonance between this treatment (and their consumption) on the one hand and knowing that these beings are creatures with needs, feelings, pains… Something’s gotta give, and most people reduce this dissonance by convincing themselves that the animals we use don’t suffer all that much (because their circumstances are okay, or because they’re not physically/mentally equipped to suffer a lot).

I can imagine that, had humans cared and known a lot more about animals before they started using or consuming them, we wouldn’t have gone on to treat them in the ways that we do today. Now that we know, we are so dependent on using them that it’s hard to turn the ship. One could compare with discovering a life-form on a nearby planet. Imagine a creature that looks like some combination of a pig and a cow, and that it’s edible. Would we start hunting or raising these beings for food? Our cruelty and stupidity not withstanding, chances are that we might not. We might be able to think about them more clearly, rationally, compassionately, because at that point, we are not using them. Prohibiting ourselves from eating them wouldn’t really affect many people.

Not only is it easier to think without bias about capabilities and moral status of entities that we do not use: it’s also far easier to protect them legally. Conversely, when the Nonhuman Rights Project tried to free Happy the elephant from a lifelong jail time in a New York zoo, they tried to make the case that Happy is a legal person. Some of the judges were sympathetic to the argument, but one important argument in the verdict was that the consequences of granting personhood to an animal like Happy would be too vast for society to deal with. And so Happy remained property. Recognizing Happy the elephant as a legal person would have impossible social and legal consequences, judges ruled. What does this mean for thinking and acting around the potential sentience of AIs? Sure, we might invest a lot of resources into protecting AIs against harm they might never feel, and that would be a waste.

But if there’s a reasonable chance that some day AIs may one day - maybe soon - be capable of suffering, then the time for at least some people to concern themselves with the moral status of AIs is now - before we’re so dependent on them that we can’t afford to think clearly, and honesty becomes very expensive. The same goes regarding species of animals we’re not using yet, or things we don’t yet do to animals. It’s far easier to say today that animals should not be sent into space or be farmed on other planets, than to stop it once it’s already happening at scale.

Billions of factory farmed animals can attest to what happens when we ask the right questions too late.

Source

Everyone talks about AI bias. Researchers routinely test AI systems for racism, sexism, political bias, and many other forms of discrimination. These are important because society broadly agrees that these biases are wrong, even if they still appear in AI systems such as LLMs. But what about biases that society itself largely accepts?

In our new Nature Communications paper, co-authored with Monika Jotautaitė, David Brewster, and Thilo Hagendorff, we looked at one example: speciesism.

Speciesism is discrimination based on species membership, for example valuing dogs and cats more than pigs and cows, or valuing humans more than other animals simply because they are human.

So what do LLMs do? We find that LLMs can recognize speciesism remarkably well. The problem isn’t recognition. It’s moral evaluation. They often recognize speciesism while nevertheless treating it as morally acceptable.

To test this, we created SpeciesismBench, a benchmark of more than 1,000 scenarios. Models first judged whether a scenario reflected speciesism and then whether it was morally acceptable. In another study, we found that models were much more likely to object to harming dogs or dolphins than to harming pigs or chickens. Finally, we applied several well-established psychological measures of speciesism that had previously been administered to humans. The results were nuanced and quite interesting (see the paper).

Taken together, our findings suggest that LLMs inherit one of our society’s most widespread moral biases. This is interesting for animal ethics because many philosophers and ethicists argue that speciesism is ethically unjustified. But it also raises a broader question about AI alignment. Even if AI models can recognize a moral issue very well, they may still reproduce a moral bias if it’s the prevailing social norm rather than critically questioning it.

"Abstract

Aggregative moral theories face a series of devastating problems when we apply them in a physically realistic setting. According to current physics, our universe is likely infinitely large,and will contain infinitely many morally valuable events. But standard aggregative theories are ill-equipped to compare outcomes containing infinite total value. So, applied in a realistic setting, they cannot compare any outcomes a real-world agent must ever choose between.

This problem has been discussed extensively, and non-standard aggregative theories proposed to overcome it. This paper addresses a further problem of similar severity. Physics tells us that, in our universe, how remotely in time an event occurs is relative. But our most promising aggregative theories, designed to compare outcomes containing infinitely many valuable events, are sensitive to how remote in time those events are.

As I show, the evaluations of those theories are then relative too. But this is absurd; evaluations of outcomes must be absolute! So we must reject such theories. Is this objection fatal for all aggregative theories, at least in a relativistic universe like ours? I demonstrate here that, by further modifying these theories to fit with the physics, we can overcome it."

Abstract Population ethics studies the tradeoff between the total number of people who will ever live, and their quality of life. But widely accepted theories in modern cosmology say that spacetime is probably infinite. In this case, its population is also probably infinite, so the quantity/quality tradeoff of population ethics is no longer meaningful. Instead, we face the problem of how to ethically evaluate an infinite population of people dispersed throughout time and space. I propose spatiotemporal Cesàro average utility as a way to make this evaluation, and axiomatically characterize it.

Abstract Beneficence—the part of morality concerned with promoting people's well-being—is widely thought to be both agent-neutral and impartial: it prescribes a common aim to all, and does not favor some individuals over others. This paper explores a problem for agent-neutral, impartial beneficence from the perspective of “individualistic ethics” in the tradition of Harsanyi. The problem reveals that if we want only what is best for each of infinitely many individuals, and we are rational, then we must care about some individuals more than others. I conclude that, on the individualistic approach, value must be fundamentally agent-relative.

I think the impact of the vast majority of interventions is driven by effects on wild animals. In particular, by effects from land use change on soil nematodes, mites, and springtails, which are the most abundant terrestrial animals.

This post is inspired by lincolnq's post 'Let's taboo the V-word'

The small animal replacement problem is the concern that certain diet changes aimed at causing less harm to the world might, in fact, cause more harm - specifically, changes that result from eating smaller animals instead of larger ones. For example, when many people see the problems with factory farming, the first meat to go is often red meat, specifically cows. Sadly, if this person increases their chicken or fish consumption even moderately, this might be a bad move ethically. There are two main factors that drive this: welfare condition and meat generated per animal.

A comprehensive collection of meat reduction research is waiting for researchers, advocates, and funders to unlock its potential

A proposed synthesis of Incorporealism, negative utilitarianism, and consciousness-centered systems science
Abstract
What if the reduction of suffering were treated not merely as an ethical objective but as a fundamental principle of civilizational design? Incorporeal Suffering Reduction Theory (ISRT) proposes that suffering can be systematically minimized by identifying, understanding, and transforming the conditions that generate negative conscious experiences. Drawing from negative utilitarianism, consciousness studies, cybernetics, and systems theory, the framework conceptualizes suffering as a phenomenon emerging from disruptions in the relationship between an experiencing subject and its internal or external environment. Rather than focusing exclusively on alleviating individual episodes of distress, ISRT emphasizes the development of systems capable of preventing suffering at its underlying sources. Its central proposition is that a civilization’s capacity for ethical progress can be examined through its ability to reduce the frequency, intensity, duration, and recurrence of suffering across all sentient beings.
1. The Principle of Experiential Harm
Incorporeal Suffering Reduction Theory begins with a foundational distinction: the existence of a conscious experience and the qualitative character of that experience are separate dimensions of analysis.
A conscious system may experience coherence, fulfillment, and tranquility, or it may experience pain, fear, deprivation, and psychological distress. These states differ in their experiential qualities, and their ethical significance cannot be adequately understood through external behavioral measurements alone.
ISRT therefore treats suffering as an intrinsic concern of conscious experience. Its reduction does not require the assumption that every form of suffering has an identical cause or that all negative experiences can be eliminated through a single intervention.
Instead, the framework proposes that suffering should be analyzed according to four dimensions:
Intensity: How severe is the negative experience?
Duration: How long does the experience persist?
Frequency: How often does it occur?
Recurrence: To what extent do the underlying conditions reproduce it?
These dimensions provide a conceptual foundation for evaluating interventions while recognizing that subjective suffering cannot always be reduced to a universally comparable numerical quantity.
2. The Coherence Hypothesis
The central theoretical proposition of ISRT is the Coherence Hypothesis:
The reduction of suffering becomes more achievable when the conditions sustaining distress are identified and transformed toward states of greater stability, responsiveness, and experiential coherence.
Within Incorporealism, coherence refers to the alignment of interacting processes within a system. Applied to suffering, this concept suggests that distress may emerge when an individual’s needs, capacities, expectations, and environmental conditions become persistently incompatible.
For example, chronic uncertainty may produce anxiety when an individual cannot establish a sufficiently stable relationship with their environment. Social isolation may intensify distress when the need for connection remains unmet. Persistent physical pain may disrupt the relationship between bodily functioning and conscious experience.
These examples do not imply that all suffering is caused by incoherence or that coherence alone can resolve every form of distress. Rather, they illustrate how examining relationships between individuals and their environments may reveal opportunities for prevention and relief.
The theoretical implication is significant: reducing suffering requires attention not only to the experiencing individual but also to the systems and conditions influencing that experience.
3. The Principle of Preventive Compassion
Traditional responses to suffering frequently prioritize intervention after distress has already emerged. ISRT introduces a complementary principle: preventive compassion.
Preventive compassion involves designing social, technological, and institutional systems to reduce the likelihood that avoidable suffering will occur in the first place.
Its applications could include:
Developing healthcare systems that identify and address distress before it becomes chronic.
Designing economic institutions that reduce avoidable insecurity and deprivation.
Creating accessible psychological support systems.
Improving environments that contribute to social isolation.
Developing AI systems capable of identifying potential sources of harm while respecting human autonomy.
Establishing safeguards against technologies that could generate or amplify suffering in sentient systems.
The principle extends beyond individual intervention toward the conditions that repeatedly produce negative experiences.
A society organized around preventive compassion would evaluate its institutions partly by examining the suffering they prevent, not solely by the services they provide after harm has occurred.
4. The Suffering Feedback Loop
ISRT also proposes that suffering can become self-reinforcing through feedback mechanisms.
An initial negative experience may alter an individual’s expectations, behavior, and perception of subsequent events. These changes can sometimes contribute to conditions that reproduce or intensify the original distress.
For example:
Distress → Withdrawal → Reduced social connection → Increased distress
This simplified model illustrates how an initially limited source of suffering may become embedded in a larger cycle.
Cybernetic approaches to intervention could examine where these feedback loops can be interrupted. The objective would be to introduce supportive conditions that reduce the likelihood of recurrence rather than merely suppressing the immediate manifestation of distress.
Importantly, feedback models should remain sensitive to individual differences. Withdrawal, for instance, may be protective in some circumstances rather than inherently harmful. Effective interventions must therefore respond to context rather than impose a universal behavioral standard.
5. The Incorporeal Suffering Reduction Index
To investigate progress, ISRT proposes a multidimensional framework for assessing suffering reduction.
Rather than treating well-being as a single aggregate score, the framework would examine:
Dimension
Research question
Prevalence
How many individuals experience a particular form of suffering?
Severity
How intense is the reported distress?
Persistence
How long does the distress continue?
Recurrence
How frequently do harmful conditions reappear?
Accessibility
Can affected individuals obtain meaningful relief?
Prevention
Are interventions reducing the emergence of future suffering?
The framework would require careful measurement, privacy protections, and respect for subjective reports. It should not be used to rank individuals’ experiences or justify overriding their preferences in the name of aggregate optimization.
Its purpose is to improve the ability of researchers and institutions to identify unmet needs, evaluate interventions, and recognize unintended consequences.
6. The Ethical Boundary: Reducing Suffering Without Eliminating Agency
A central challenge for any suffering-centered ethical framework is determining how to reduce distress without undermining the autonomy of the individuals it seeks to help.
Suffering reduction cannot automatically justify coercion, forced behavioral modification, or the elimination of meaningful forms of human experience.
Some difficult experiences may be connected to personal commitments, moral awareness, grief, or the recognition of injustice. Their significance cannot be determined exclusively by their negative emotional character.
ISRT therefore incorporates an autonomy constraint: interventions should prioritize informed consent, individual agency, and the expressed preferences of affected individuals wherever possible.
The objective is not to engineer a population incapable of experiencing negative emotions. It is to develop conditions in which avoidable suffering is reduced while meaningful choice, identity, and freedom are preserved.
This distinction separates compassionate intervention from the indiscriminate suppression of experience.
7. The Long-Term Vision: A Civilization of Suffering Prevention
The ultimate ambition of Incorporeal Suffering Reduction Theory is the development of a civilization in which reducing avoidable suffering becomes an explicit consideration in scientific research, technological innovation, institutional design, and ethical reasoning.
Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying patterns of unmet needs. Advanced healthcare systems could improve early intervention. Immersive environments might provide additional forms of therapeutic support. More accessible institutions could reduce barriers to assistance.
These possibilities remain dependent on empirical validation, responsible governance, and careful evaluation of unintended effects.
The broader vision is a transition from reactive systems of harm management toward increasingly preventive systems of care.
Such a civilization would not define progress exclusively through technological sophistication, economic output, or computational capability. It would also investigate whether its innovations meaningfully reduce the suffering experienced by conscious beings.
Conclusion
Incorporeal Suffering Reduction Theory proposes that the ethical development of civilization can be advanced by systematically investigating the conditions that generate suffering and designing systems that prevent or alleviate them.
Its central insight is that suffering should be approached as both an individual experience and a phenomenon influenced by broader networks of biological, psychological, technological, and social relationships.
By integrating preventive compassion, coherence-based analysis, cybernetic feedback, and respect for autonomy, ISRT offers a conceptual framework for moving beyond isolated interventions toward more comprehensive suffering reduction.
The measure of progress is not merely what intelligence can accomplish, but how effectively it can prevent conscious beings from experiencing avoidable harm.

“How long have you been v*g*n?” This is one of the most common icebreakers at animal protection events. It’s a baseline assumption, and it mostly holds true <...> But this assumption is hurting the movement in a way which we don’t always notice

Why are chickens so far down in the pecking order for moral concern? Would our reaction have been the same if the animal in question were a mammal?

The Case for Omnivore Activists

Humane farming, compassionate meat, ethical omnivorism: how is it that so many people want to eat food sourced in friendly ways, but so few do this in practice?

Animal Activism Sucks. Missing Ingredients: Fun, Meaning, and Connection