Chickens (and presumably vegans): flesh automatons uninhabited by qualia, moved by instinct alone because the shape of their skulls does not allow for consciousness to emerge from their organic neurons
ChatGPT: Cyberspace spanning mega consciousness moved by untold intelligence and inscrutable will to dominate the human species, whose intricate network of etched silicon self-evidently gives rise to qualia because how else would it pass the Turing test?
Eliezer Yudkowsky: A very smart individual whose intelligence lies squarely between the chicken and ChatGPT
Jargon to differentiate yourself from the normies is a feature of cultures with cult-like traits. Why say “beliefs” and “experiences” when you could say “priors” and “qualia” and sound smart to exactly your subculture and batshit to everyone else?
Im gonna take this in good faith as kinda a “why use the simple vague word when the fancy specific word seems better” question. Here’s why, using the word “overfitting” as my example fancy word:
The fancy word is alienating. When we use a word like “overfitting”, people either have to start googling or go away. It’s bad practice for welcoming people in. The ruder subset of rationalists would probably justify it with something like “well if you’re incurious enough you can’t google overfitting maybe we don’t want you” but that on its face sucks.
It’s jargon, and it packs down a lot of implied meaning into one thing. This can be useful for speedy communication, but it also creates a big hurdle when people pack down meaning in different ways. Do I mean overfitting in the statistics sense, in the machine learning sense, or in some not-very-well-specified rationalist life-optimization sense? In whatever sense I mean it, are you sure you’ve learned that sense correctly? Are you sure I’ve learned it correctly?
It’s pretentious. We can see engineering types moan about this when softer fields pull out their jargon. Nobody likes the English grad who busts out “deconstruction” in casual conversation. It’s the same for “overfitting”.
I think when communicating there’s a kind of person who feels a pull to use the “right” word in a sentence, where “right” is mostly defined by what feels the most specific. I’m like that a lot of the time, and I think it makes me a worse communicator. It seems to me like rationalists generally take that drive to the absolute extreme.
Okay very fair points you mostly changed my mind, although I think points 1 and 3 are almost the same. I also kinda take issue with the word pretentious in general as I've never really heard it used in a way that wasn't a bit pretentious itself, the word is like self contained irony bait imo (including how I just used it lol), but that's a weirdly personal nitpick on my end.
I think using qualia made sense to me initially because it doesn't act as a direct synonym but rather a more applicable word, like "belief" or "experience" have a different meaning and undermine the point, but I can't think of another word that means the same thing as qualia that isn't an entire phrase. So for the sake of that I thought it was fair, but you have a good point that using the most "accurate" word for a situation isn't always the best course of action, and most rationalists are autisticly fixated with accuracy to the point of undermining how they come off to others. In retrospect qualia is a relatively niche word a lot of people would have to go look up to get the point of. The counterpoint there tbf is that everyone following yudkowsky on twitter is online/read enough to probably already know it, it's not like he's saying it at the extended family thanksgiving dinner table. Plus I think it's an underused word that's better fitting for certain contexts than others so introducing it to someone's lexicon isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of modern discourse/usage of language is really subpar for what we could do with the language so pushing the overton window w vocab makes sense, but that's probably reading into it too much and giving him too much credit lol
But yeah I def see ur perspective and don't entirely disagree
Oh yeah pretentious is 100% a word that people hit other people over the head with.
Personally I think pretentiousness should only really be looked down on when it’s in a faker-y kind of context. In this context, mostly I don’t like Yud using moral or epistemological philosophy concepts is cause basically all his self-described philosophy work he’s been largely ignored or laughed out of the room.
Like, I wouldn’t berate a freshman in a philosophy class for using the word at a party. I’d find it kinda cringe, and maybe think it’s not a great word for a party conversation, but there it seems like they’re alienating someone because they’re trying on their philosophy-hat and seeing how it fits. Yud, and rationalists in general, using it strike me more as a way to demonstrate to each other “look how well my philosophy-hat fits, aren’t I smart?”
I know it's a *real* word, but like....I take issue with people who think "using uncommon or big words" is the same as "being smart." It's possibly I'm getting annoyed over nothing but also fuck yud
He seems to understand what it means as evidenced by him citing Chalmers on the easy problem vs. hard problem in this tweet, I suspect that like Chalmers he believes in some notion of a lawlike relation between physical/functional states and qualia (Chalmers calls these 'psychophysical laws') but then he places so much trust in his own genius that he acts totally confident in the intuition that the relevant functional property would be something like a high-level self-model that allows an organism to pass the mirror test (something he references in the debate about animal consciousness here) and doesn't feel the need to explain why this should be the critical feature to those who don't share his intuitions.
Googling it, it seems like primarily a hyper-specific piece of philosophy jargon so I would not recommend using it outside of writing a philosophy paper (where the meaning will be clear and the specificity is also useful)
Describe to me a scenario where the word qualia cannot be substituted with "instance of perspective" and not maintain full grammatic and philosophical meaning.
“Qualia” doesn’t mean “instance of perspective”. A quale is a subjective qualitative experience, like one’s own experience of the color red. That’s kind of like a perspective but the concept means a lot more than that.
Also, if you’re complaining about number of words, I’ll point out that “qualia” is one and “instance of perspective” is three …
There is no scenario where "perspective" can be substituted with "qualia". A quale is a direct perception, the smell of lavender, the color purple, the feeling you get when you see your dog.
There are large swaths of literature that does not use the word or even predate it.
It's not the concept of unique perception I'm annoyed by. It's the defining a concept that describes itself as inherently indescribable. I just find it's too easy for people to then use a term like that to speak authoritatively without actually understanding themselves. Case in point, this original post.
Yeah, I know it's a word, and I'm not saying it hasn't been debated at great length. But damn if every time I've seen it used I'm not being taken for a ride by the authors slight re-interpretation/mis-interpretation and now have to re-consider what they've said everywhere in this new context. Maybe this says something about my chosen reading material, but I feel like forcing people to describe themselves plainly would lay thier bias bare faster.
You’d actually need to prove the opposite, that there’s a use of “instance of perspective” that means something qualia doesn’t, proving that instance of perspective is a broader phrase than qualia is.
Forced perspective in art is taking. A single perspective and using it to project a scene. A quale would be someone standing at that perspective and having the similar geometry presented to them.
Projecting his neurotic fear of AI onto chickens now, bc that's about the level of sapience it just might be at next week, and he knows he's really just a tasty bug to the hungry machine-minded...
Are there still a lot of EAs doing the vegan thing, or at this point have they all lost interest in any ethical conundrum that doesn't involve science fiction
Lol, the let's "rebuild nature" folks are absolutely wild when you run across them. I'm not totally sure how the crossover of veganism/rationalism/debate bros birthed that particular subculture, and I really don't have the energy to find out.
Because per one user’s argument nature is 1 billion years of suffering and should be largely demolished including deforestation programs that “equatorial refugees” should not mess with
If your paycheck depends on your claim that non-human intelligence both can and ought to be aligned with "human values" without destroying shareholder value, of course you have to believe that industrially farming animals for meat is fine.
Definitionally it's impossible to know whether another being experiences qualia or not, isn't that kind of the rub of it? Isn't that kind of at the heart and the essence of what makes qualia such a peculiar and purportedly unique phenomena?
My "model" of Pudpullsky is a smegmatic fedora stand dreaming that AGI will demand, as the condition of it turning itself off and letting humanity thrive, that Aella breed with him in perpetuity.
He does know that you can just, you know, talk to people, right? Ask them about their beliefs and their ideas? That you don't need to just make up what you think they probably believe?
Isn't this a bastardisation of a Peter Singer argument that under a preference utilitarian framework you can justify eating meat as animals are not concious enough not to have a preference for being eaten
animals are not concious enough not to have a preference for being eaten
Which, frankly, is just as ridiculous an argument to make. Go bite into an animal while it's still alive and its preference against being eaten will become quite evident.
Has Eliezer ever actually articulated why he is so convinced animals don’t have any experience? Like, at least with his AI doomerism he has a few million words of pseudo-intellectual blogposts articulating his ideas. AFAIK, to justify his anti-vegan claims, he has a few offhand mentions of neuroscience and a some vague claims about insights into the hard problem of consciousness and that’s supposed to be convincing. And he isn’t just claiming animals have less conscious experience, he’s claiming none!
Probably he just wants to eat meat and knows acknowledging any animal experience or moral weight means via the utilitarian logic he claims to follow he would have to weight total animal experience quite significantly. And he doesn’t want to, so he rationalizes, just like his gajillions of words of sequences say exactly not to.
Edit: found one guess at why Eliezer keeps saying that. In typical lesswrong fashion, it’s even dumber than I would have guessed: https://rivalvoices.substack.com/p/eliezer-yudkowsky-thinks-chickens. (TLDR: Eliezer conflates self-reflection with qualia/conscious experience)
As someone who has raised and handled chickens for both company and food (including slaughter), this totally sounds like a guy who has never seen a chicken in person lmao
Lol. I started this week with a lot of car time visiting family and decided to listen to the Lex Fridman interview. This then reminded me that i wanted to dig a little deeper into EA and less wrong (only read a few posts but was intrigued). Then about halfway through, my admittedly limited STEM PhD programming and computational experience started sniffing some bullshit and I went to Yuds website to discover he had literally no education whatsoever. I googled Yud experience training and that led me here. What a ride.
Tangent: about halfway through it seemed Lex was starting to see through the bullshit too and get disillusioned but then he signed off by calling him one of the great thinkers of our time.
can someone explain the actual issue with this tweet cus imo yeah it's kinda silly but the point makes some sense. I imagine the level of conscious complexity in animals is on some sliding scale and chickens are probably on the lower end. If we're just laughing because of who it is/the wording, fair I guess, but keep in mind this is probably like top 20 most autistic guys on the planet so idk if it's in great faith to make fun of the way he speaks.
that would probably depend on my conscious complexity lol.
To be clear I generally disagree with the tweet, I think eating meat in most capacities is pretty bad at this stage in society. That being said I'm not engaging with the process any better, I'm also just making a guess at the level of experience animals have.
His idea's that most animals have basically no sentience/qualia at all
The model of a pig as having pain that is like yours, but simpler, is wrong. The pig does have cognitive algorithms similar to the ones that impinge upon your own self-awareness as emotions, but without the reflective self-awareness that creates someone to listen to it.
Solves hard problem of consciousness, immediately uses it to justify eating tendies
Chickens are avian dinosaurs. Another avian dinosaurs you may be familiar with is the african gray parrot. African gray parrots are basically as smart as a young human child (and can be taught to vocalize via human speech). Note: I mean 'vocalize' not 'mindlessly repeat.'
Keeping these facts in mind, do you think it is more likely that chickens are like a young human child, or like a dresser near your bed?
He positions himself as an autodidactic expert in multiple topics, so making fun of how he communicates subjects he claims expertise in is absolutely fair game.
How about the part where he just invents his own idea of what vegans (a group that consists of tens of millions of people, by the way) think about the issue, and then declares that most of them haven't thought about it as hard as he as? Regardless of how you feel about the issue, that's a pretty dumb argument.
i raised chickens growing up and that is absolutely not true. they are so much more complex than people give them credit for and there have been countless studies on their intelligence.
Chickens (and presumably vegans): flesh automatons uninhabited by qualia, moved by instinct alone because the shape of their skulls does not allow for consciousness to emerge from their organic neurons
ChatGPT: Cyberspace spanning mega consciousness moved by untold intelligence and inscrutable will to dominate the human species, whose intricate network of etched silicon self-evidently gives rise to qualia because how else would it pass the Turing test?
Eliezer Yudkowsky: A very smart individual whose intelligence lies squarely between the chicken and ChatGPT
Reinvented Descartes argument again
That’s overselling GPT
and it's underselling chickens and vegans. that is because it's a joking take on yud's perspective.
Why do rationalists use so many words to say so little
Jargon to differentiate yourself from the normies is a feature of cultures with cult-like traits. Why say “beliefs” and “experiences” when you could say “priors” and “qualia” and sound smart to exactly your subculture and batshit to everyone else?
Qualia has a pretty narrow technical use. Yud is a moron but the use of qualia isn't the worst issue here.
because qualia is a much more applicable word for the context?
Im gonna take this in good faith as kinda a “why use the simple vague word when the fancy specific word seems better” question. Here’s why, using the word “overfitting” as my example fancy word:
The fancy word is alienating. When we use a word like “overfitting”, people either have to start googling or go away. It’s bad practice for welcoming people in. The ruder subset of rationalists would probably justify it with something like “well if you’re incurious enough you can’t google overfitting maybe we don’t want you” but that on its face sucks.
It’s jargon, and it packs down a lot of implied meaning into one thing. This can be useful for speedy communication, but it also creates a big hurdle when people pack down meaning in different ways. Do I mean overfitting in the statistics sense, in the machine learning sense, or in some not-very-well-specified rationalist life-optimization sense? In whatever sense I mean it, are you sure you’ve learned that sense correctly? Are you sure I’ve learned it correctly?
It’s pretentious. We can see engineering types moan about this when softer fields pull out their jargon. Nobody likes the English grad who busts out “deconstruction” in casual conversation. It’s the same for “overfitting”.
I think when communicating there’s a kind of person who feels a pull to use the “right” word in a sentence, where “right” is mostly defined by what feels the most specific. I’m like that a lot of the time, and I think it makes me a worse communicator. It seems to me like rationalists generally take that drive to the absolute extreme.
Okay very fair points you mostly changed my mind, although I think points 1 and 3 are almost the same. I also kinda take issue with the word pretentious in general as I've never really heard it used in a way that wasn't a bit pretentious itself, the word is like self contained irony bait imo (including how I just used it lol), but that's a weirdly personal nitpick on my end.
I think using qualia made sense to me initially because it doesn't act as a direct synonym but rather a more applicable word, like "belief" or "experience" have a different meaning and undermine the point, but I can't think of another word that means the same thing as qualia that isn't an entire phrase. So for the sake of that I thought it was fair, but you have a good point that using the most "accurate" word for a situation isn't always the best course of action, and most rationalists are autisticly fixated with accuracy to the point of undermining how they come off to others. In retrospect qualia is a relatively niche word a lot of people would have to go look up to get the point of. The counterpoint there tbf is that everyone following yudkowsky on twitter is online/read enough to probably already know it, it's not like he's saying it at the extended family thanksgiving dinner table. Plus I think it's an underused word that's better fitting for certain contexts than others so introducing it to someone's lexicon isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of modern discourse/usage of language is really subpar for what we could do with the language so pushing the overton window w vocab makes sense, but that's probably reading into it too much and giving him too much credit lol
But yeah I def see ur perspective and don't entirely disagree
Oh yeah pretentious is 100% a word that people hit other people over the head with.
Personally I think pretentiousness should only really be looked down on when it’s in a faker-y kind of context. In this context, mostly I don’t like Yud using moral or epistemological philosophy concepts is cause basically all his self-described philosophy work he’s been largely ignored or laughed out of the room.
Like, I wouldn’t berate a freshman in a philosophy class for using the word at a party. I’d find it kinda cringe, and maybe think it’s not a great word for a party conversation, but there it seems like they’re alienating someone because they’re trying on their philosophy-hat and seeing how it fits. Yud, and rationalists in general, using it strike me more as a way to demonstrate to each other “look how well my philosophy-hat fits, aren’t I smart?”
I'm not sure qualia is the right word here. I certainly don't think vegans would use that word in this context.
Also, TIL I learned a new word.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted lol, in consciousness research performed by actual academics it’s a very well established term in common use
bad posters
Qualia is a real word, he’s just using it poorly.
I know it's a *real* word, but like....I take issue with people who think "using uncommon or big words" is the same as "being smart." It's possibly I'm getting annoyed over nothing but also fuck yud
He seems to understand what it means as evidenced by him citing Chalmers on the easy problem vs. hard problem in this tweet, I suspect that like Chalmers he believes in some notion of a lawlike relation between physical/functional states and qualia (Chalmers calls these 'psychophysical laws') but then he places so much trust in his own genius that he acts totally confident in the intuition that the relevant functional property would be something like a high-level self-model that allows an organism to pass the mirror test (something he references in the debate about animal consciousness here) and doesn't feel the need to explain why this should be the critical feature to those who don't share his intuitions.
Googling it, it seems like primarily a hyper-specific piece of philosophy jargon so I would not recommend using it outside of writing a philosophy paper (where the meaning will be clear and the specificity is also useful)
I mean, it's a word in the sense that even in 1929 C.I. Lewis was grasping for a pretentious way to say "perspective."
I mean no.
Describe to me a scenario where the word qualia cannot be substituted with "instance of perspective" and not maintain full grammatic and philosophical meaning.
“Qualia” doesn’t mean “instance of perspective”. A quale is a subjective qualitative experience, like one’s own experience of the color red. That’s kind of like a perspective but the concept means a lot more than that.
Also, if you’re complaining about number of words, I’ll point out that “qualia” is one and “instance of perspective” is three …
There is no scenario where "perspective" can be substituted with "qualia". A quale is a direct perception, the smell of lavender, the color purple, the feeling you get when you see your dog.
There are large swaths of literature that does not use the word or even predate it.
It's not the concept of unique perception I'm annoyed by. It's the defining a concept that describes itself as inherently indescribable. I just find it's too easy for people to then use a term like that to speak authoritatively without actually understanding themselves. Case in point, this original post.
Yeah, I know it's a word, and I'm not saying it hasn't been debated at great length. But damn if every time I've seen it used I'm not being taken for a ride by the authors slight re-interpretation/mis-interpretation and now have to re-consider what they've said everywhere in this new context. Maybe this says something about my chosen reading material, but I feel like forcing people to describe themselves plainly would lay thier bias bare faster.
You’d actually need to prove the opposite, that there’s a use of “instance of perspective” that means something qualia doesn’t, proving that instance of perspective is a broader phrase than qualia is.
Forced perspective in art is taking. A single perspective and using it to project a scene. A quale would be someone standing at that perspective and having the similar geometry presented to them.
Intelligence cosplay.
looks up from reading Kan'ts Critique of Pure Reason
sorry, what did you say?
Projecting his neurotic fear of AI onto chickens now, bc that's about the level of sapience it just might be at next week, and he knows he's really just a tasty bug to the hungry machine-minded...
How does he get to such stupid positions by such complicated paths?
I should print out this tweet and give it to students to demonstrate why a more complicated answer isn't always more sophisticated.
EY has been chronically online for the last 25 years, even he must be bored of his flowery yet often inane and disconnected from reality takes
Are there still a lot of EAs doing the vegan thing, or at this point have they all lost interest in any ethical conundrum that doesn't involve science fiction
There are a bunch, and also some wild animal suffering worriers who leave their “rational” solution to that problem unspoken.
Lol, the let's "rebuild nature" folks are absolutely wild when you run across them. I'm not totally sure how the crossover of veganism/rationalism/debate bros birthed that particular subculture, and I really don't have the energy to find out.
Because per one user’s argument nature is 1 billion years of suffering and should be largely demolished including deforestation programs that “equatorial refugees” should not mess with
it's also great when the wild animal suffering worriers are simultaneously stupendous race scientists about humans
this is a really funny joke in anyone else's hands
Did he just call vegans p-zombies?
Ah Descartes… my old foe
For once the problem with this is the og rationalism not the pseud appropriation.
If your paycheck depends on your claim that non-human intelligence both can and ought to be aligned with "human values" without destroying shareholder value, of course you have to believe that industrially farming animals for meat is fine.
Definitionally it's impossible to know whether another being experiences qualia or not, isn't that kind of the rub of it? Isn't that kind of at the heart and the essence of what makes qualia such a peculiar and purportedly unique phenomena?
Yeah but what if we just like guess?
Don't give him any ideas, he'll start eating people.
"My model of vegans"
My "model" of Pudpullsky is a smegmatic fedora stand dreaming that AGI will demand, as the condition of it turning itself off and letting humanity thrive, that Aella breed with him in perpetuity.
He does know that you can just, you know, talk to people, right? Ask them about their beliefs and their ideas? That you don't need to just make up what you think they probably believe?
You think that you don't have a model of vegans, because you've talked to them?
I don’t think I think about the ethics of consumption enough to have constructed any complete model of any culture-groups involved.
You think you can construct complete models? Impressive.
Well, through God, all things are possible, so jot that down.
whatever you think you're doing, don't do it here
I know Yud says he's usually too tired to do physical exercise. I wonder if it's from all the mental gymnastics?
It has proved quite difficult to ‘align’ human intelligence with, uh, chicken values. So it is convenient for him to assume they don’t have any.
That doesn’t mean they do, or that I will take them into account faced with a delicious-looking one.
I sure hope AI isn’t reading any of this. Just kidding back there, pls don’t eat me
Isn't this a bastardisation of a Peter Singer argument that under a preference utilitarian framework you can justify eating meat as animals are not concious enough not to have a preference for being eaten
Which, frankly, is just as ridiculous an argument to make. Go bite into an animal while it's still alive and its preference against being eaten will become quite evident.
Aren’t these the people who worry about shrimp welfare
Eliezer periodically makes fun of the animal welfare side of the Effective Altruists, this is just a continuation of that.
Why does he phrase it in a way to suggest he's proud that his own thoughts don't escape him?
Has Eliezer ever actually articulated why he is so convinced animals don’t have any experience? Like, at least with his AI doomerism he has a few million words of pseudo-intellectual blogposts articulating his ideas. AFAIK, to justify his anti-vegan claims, he has a few offhand mentions of neuroscience and a some vague claims about insights into the hard problem of consciousness and that’s supposed to be convincing. And he isn’t just claiming animals have less conscious experience, he’s claiming none!
Probably he just wants to eat meat and knows acknowledging any animal experience or moral weight means via the utilitarian logic he claims to follow he would have to weight total animal experience quite significantly. And he doesn’t want to, so he rationalizes, just like his gajillions of words of sequences say exactly not to.
Edit: found one guess at why Eliezer keeps saying that. In typical lesswrong fashion, it’s even dumber than I would have guessed: https://rivalvoices.substack.com/p/eliezer-yudkowsky-thinks-chickens. (TLDR: Eliezer conflates self-reflection with qualia/conscious experience)
As someone who has raised and handled chickens for both company and food (including slaughter), this totally sounds like a guy who has never seen a chicken in person lmao
i have one simple trick that works every damn time: getting comic book guy text to speech to read a silly yud post https://www.101soundboards.com/sounds/44796961-it-has-hardly-escaped-me-that-if-a-thing-had-conscious-experiences-i-would-not-want-to
Lol. I started this week with a lot of car time visiting family and decided to listen to the Lex Fridman interview. This then reminded me that i wanted to dig a little deeper into EA and less wrong (only read a few posts but was intrigued). Then about halfway through, my admittedly limited STEM PhD programming and computational experience started sniffing some bullshit and I went to Yuds website to discover he had literally no education whatsoever. I googled Yud experience training and that led me here. What a ride.
Tangent: about halfway through it seemed Lex was starting to see through the bullshit too and get disillusioned but then he signed off by calling him one of the great thinkers of our time.
wonder if anyone challenged his opinion in his comment section. out of infotainment... i know it wouldnt change anything
w-what??? im fairly new to the yudkowsky rabbit hole, but how do you come to this conclusion??? animals having consciousness is common knowledge!
can someone explain the actual issue with this tweet cus imo yeah it's kinda silly but the point makes some sense. I imagine the level of conscious complexity in animals is on some sliding scale and chickens are probably on the lower end. If we're just laughing because of who it is/the wording, fair I guess, but keep in mind this is probably like top 20 most autistic guys on the planet so idk if it's in great faith to make fun of the way he speaks.
How would you like it if someone decided your conscious complexity was low enough to torture you?
that would probably depend on my conscious complexity lol.
To be clear I generally disagree with the tweet, I think eating meat in most capacities is pretty bad at this stage in society. That being said I'm not engaging with the process any better, I'm also just making a guess at the level of experience animals have.
His idea's that most animals have basically no sentience/qualia at all
Solves hard problem of consciousness, immediately uses it to justify eating tendies
I mean he might totally be right for all I know I just personally would prefer to err on the side of caution
Chickens are avian dinosaurs. Another avian dinosaurs you may be familiar with is the african gray parrot. African gray parrots are basically as smart as a young human child (and can be taught to vocalize via human speech). Note: I mean 'vocalize' not 'mindlessly repeat.'
Keeping these facts in mind, do you think it is more likely that chickens are like a young human child, or like a dresser near your bed?
Are you a concern troll?
He positions himself as an autodidactic expert in multiple topics, so making fun of how he communicates subjects he claims expertise in is absolutely fair game.
true and totally fair. I think critiquing his relatively benign/mundane tweets on reddit is equivalently pretentious though
This isn’t benign or mundane if you think animal suffering has any importance at all.
delta
How about the part where he just invents his own idea of what vegans (a group that consists of tens of millions of people, by the way) think about the issue, and then declares that most of them haven't thought about it as hard as he as? Regardless of how you feel about the issue, that's a pretty dumb argument.
I'm vegan/vegetarian because I think about animal consciousness.
i raised chickens growing up and that is absolutely not true. they are so much more complex than people give them credit for and there have been countless studies on their intelligence.
Yeah I mean I don't necessarily buy the point he made either I'm not saying it's true