This one: http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/ethical-case-conservation/ … or that one: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals …
There is no reason to judge blog articles and scientific papers differently, and it is hard to make a philosophical contribution that does more than restating the obvious. I just wanted to use the texts as pointers to two ideas, one common but hard to defend, and the alternative.
-
-
I know, therefor the smiley (was just trolling). I meant that text #1 maks claims I know to be wrong - or at least dangerously generalising - to prove its point without even trying to give references for them. For me, that's a sign for the whole message likely being biased.
-
Oh, yes, the first text is poorly reasoned, but of course that should not reflect on the position itself. On the other hand, radical anti-natalism is one of those positions that are very easy to make consistent but not very useful to hold.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
(Maybe I also misunderstood your answer, it's late and it was a long day. PS: I wish philosophical statements were obvious to more people I know. Could make the world less of an "I am right!!1"-place.)
-
The general human opinion space is not a good habitat for a seriously curious mind, is that much not obvious? Also, I don't think that the humans are to blame for refusing to waste synapses on holding opinions that they have no reason to consider useful to them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.