Luke Muehlhauser of the Open Philanthropy Project recently published a major report on animal consciousness and the question of "moral patienthood" — i.e. which beings merit moral concern? The purpose of the report is to inform Open Phil's grantmaking, especially in its farm animal welfare focus area. Luke would like to hear your questions and objections, and he will host an "Ask Me Anything" session on the issues discussed in the report, here on the Effective Altruism Forum, starting at 9am Pacific on Wednesday, June 28th.
I hope you will read the report and then join in with lots of questions about the topics it covers: consciousness, moral patienthood, animal cognition, meta-ethics, moral weight, illusionism, hidden qualia, and more!
Luke would also like to note that much of the most interesting content in the report is in the appendices and even some footnotes, e.g. on unconscious vision, on what a more satisfying theory of consciousness might look like, and an explanation of attention schema theory (footnote 288).
(In case it's confusing why I'm posting this: I'm coming on as a moderator of the Forum, and will post shortly with more info about that.)
Thanks, I've been talking with 'em every week :) .
What's quite clear to me, whether it's morally justifiable in terms some EAs will agree with, or not:
If we do not let them do some unappealing things to mice, that will cost millions of human lives.
The question of animal experimentation bears directly on EA funding decisions.
There is no "vegan" way out for some kinds of studies. I personally would volunteer for some kinds of experiments, if I had just a short time to live. Even that would not cover all of the necessary cases, and I might be prevented.
For example, we urgently need to map fluid flows in the brain. When we sleep, flows in the "glymphatic system" turn on and off. We barely understand this phenomenon.
If we knew more, we could try new treatments for Alzheimer's dise... (read more)