Interesting but it could have been more (civilly)contentious. We need less people? Respectfully disagree. Similarly, if we concerned about lifting human living standards we need more container ships. Respect the accomplished professor and her case but she should be more receptive to other naturalist conceptions.
Interesting but it could have been more (civilly)contentious. We need less people? Respectfully disagree. Similarly, if we concerned about lifting human living standards we need more container ships. Respect the accomplished professor and her case but she should be more receptive to other naturalist conceptions.
it's funny too, when either of us tried to press her on the political aspect (much less the moral) she would draw grand analogies (history of feminism!) rather than anything that could specifically persuade Shadi that animals deserve more than they are currently give.
She's just flat out wrong about India and overpopulation, but it seems like most of the rest of the disagreement is mostly some weird generational semantic barrier I can't quite put my finger on. Like, when she answers the question about dealing with the fact that most people just let their lizardbrain dictate things and meat is tasty and how are you going to change that, she basically says "incentives" without framing it in an econ or EA way. In other words, you aren't going to change it. You will just make it easier for people to do better by making them not to have to sacrifice so much. Or her answer about the root of morality is basically "telos" with telos defined as the ability to fulfill one's goals across time. She's explaining the moral root of life in the hot, biting sense of moral wrongness most people feel when a child dies, precisely the thing making so many people angry about death in Gaza. The suffering in Gaza isn't just physical agony. It's all the gardens blown up, all the children not born or killed, all the houses knocked down, and so on. The death of potential and curtailment of fulfillment. Isn't this like *the* thing driving Palestinian nationalism? I feel like I consistently understood what she was saying.
You both were so gracious and thoughtful and I was honestly surprised by her petulance. Shadi showed the patience of Job. As you tried to convey, one can be sympathetic to the case and still raise legitimate concerns. Excuse my candor, and IтАЩm not a professional philosopher and greatly respect her work, but IMHO that kind of stridency doesnтАЩt serve philosophy.
since it is our venue, I think neither of us wanted to be inhospitable to our guestтАФI do think there is a massive philosophical issue below the surface though. As I said live, the issue is about love of nature as a whole. We've collectively made decisions largely to ignore our effect on natureтАФand I'm v skeptical general talk about "justice" is going to cut it in response.
Precisely, no need to be inhospitable and the parochial focus is not grappling with the (existential) issue. Enjoying all the WoC material. Peerless. Have a great weekend!
Interesting but it could have been more (civilly)contentious. We need less people? Respectfully disagree. Similarly, if we concerned about lifting human living standards we need more container ships. Respect the accomplished professor and her case but she should be more receptive to other naturalist conceptions.
it's funny too, when either of us tried to press her on the political aspect (much less the moral) she would draw grand analogies (history of feminism!) rather than anything that could specifically persuade Shadi that animals deserve more than they are currently give.
She's just flat out wrong about India and overpopulation, but it seems like most of the rest of the disagreement is mostly some weird generational semantic barrier I can't quite put my finger on. Like, when she answers the question about dealing with the fact that most people just let their lizardbrain dictate things and meat is tasty and how are you going to change that, she basically says "incentives" without framing it in an econ or EA way. In other words, you aren't going to change it. You will just make it easier for people to do better by making them not to have to sacrifice so much. Or her answer about the root of morality is basically "telos" with telos defined as the ability to fulfill one's goals across time. She's explaining the moral root of life in the hot, biting sense of moral wrongness most people feel when a child dies, precisely the thing making so many people angry about death in Gaza. The suffering in Gaza isn't just physical agony. It's all the gardens blown up, all the children not born or killed, all the houses knocked down, and so on. The death of potential and curtailment of fulfillment. Isn't this like *the* thing driving Palestinian nationalism? I feel like I consistently understood what she was saying.
You both were so gracious and thoughtful and I was honestly surprised by her petulance. Shadi showed the patience of Job. As you tried to convey, one can be sympathetic to the case and still raise legitimate concerns. Excuse my candor, and IтАЩm not a professional philosopher and greatly respect her work, but IMHO that kind of stridency doesnтАЩt serve philosophy.
since it is our venue, I think neither of us wanted to be inhospitable to our guestтАФI do think there is a massive philosophical issue below the surface though. As I said live, the issue is about love of nature as a whole. We've collectively made decisions largely to ignore our effect on natureтАФand I'm v skeptical general talk about "justice" is going to cut it in response.
Precisely, no need to be inhospitable and the parochial focus is not grappling with the (existential) issue. Enjoying all the WoC material. Peerless. Have a great weekend!