Directly killing someone versus indirectly killing someone

[brimstoneSalad]

I think I disagree with this one since it might give someone the impression that changing to electric car, regardless of the condition of the current car, is always a good thing. I've read that the best thing one can do for the environment (if one has to drive a car) is to keep driving one's current car for as many years as possible. Then, when that car is done, buying an electric rather than a petrol/diesel car would be the morally superior choice.

There's a lot of embodied energy in car manufacture, but selling your current car probably doesn't mean it's going to a junk yard -- it probably means somebody else driving it for as long as possible. The only way it would be junked early would be is if you're in a market with a large surplus of used vehicles in the condition yours is in and no worse ones for people to trade up from.

Also, recycling a car is probably going to recover something like 90% of the embodied energy.

Ultimately it probably depends on how much you drive. If you're a daily commuter it is probably worth it even if your current car is only a couple years old. If you drive once a week two miles to get groceries it may not be worth it until you literally can't drive your current car at all.

[Jebus]

Should we be killing other humans on purpose to save animals? Isn't that kind of where your logic leads to?

Don't know about you, but I don't want to spend the rest of my life in jail.

[Jamie in Chile]

@Jamie in Chile I don't want to confuse things but wouldn't the loss of human life time in turn cause less loss (and quality) of non-human animal time? Hence, loss of human life time, if it were somehow isolated from total animal life time, would be a good thing.

Having written that, I agree that presenting consequences in human life time (rather than in non-human life time) is a better way of motivating people to reduce their footprint

I think what you are saying is that each lost human life there are less humans to inflict suffering on animals, destroy habitats and the human population will expand less giving more resources, and more life, for animals. I think that is correct, the question is then is this as significant an effect as the direct impacts of climate change on animals.

If your conclusion were to be that climate change is bad for humans but neutral or good for animals that doesn't seem quite right for me given that humans are more adapatable than animals. If there is no arctic ice in summer, polar bears don't just move to Canada. They die.

So I think I'll stick with my argument for now, although I'm not fully sure if you're right or not. You could certainly make a case for sticking to human suffering only for simplicity and because of the uncertainty.

Maybe next time instead of the 8x multiplier I'll do a 4x multiplier for suffering and pollution and just add "this doesn't even consider the effects on animals".

[Jamie in Chile]

Delaying getting an electric car until 2026 rather than 2021 = 10 days of life lost

I think I disagree with this one since it might give someone the impression that changing to electric car, regardless of the condition of the current car, is always a good thing. I've read that the best thing one can do for the environment (if one has to drive a car) is to keep driving one's current car for as many years as possible. Then, when that car is done, buying an electric rather than a petrol/diesel car would be the morally superior choice.

How many people out there are driving around old cars worth $2000 while seriously considering whether to spend $50,000 on a Tesla? It can't be that many. In such a case the most ethical choice is not clear cut but it's often not a realistic case and it's that false comparison that people are making.

In a second hand vs second hand or new vs new comparison, electric cars win.

If you don't have second hand electric cars available where you live, you could get a 50-60mpg hybrid like an old Toyota Prius and try and keep your mileage down to 5,000 per year. That is about as good as an electric car.

Another option is to get someone to convert your car to an electric car although it's not very common and not inexpensive.

[Jamie in Chile]

@Jamie in Chile

do you believe its not morally justified to drive cars since driving 6 miles causing 2 minutes-4 hours of intense suffering for someone?

I think sometimes it's morally justified to drive a car and sometimes it isn't. You have to look at the case by case basis. What if you are disabled and feel that without car your life quality would be substantially reduced, or you need a car to get to someone's funeral? Doesn't using car rather than public transport help on a COVID basis for the next few months until we have widespread vaccination? What if your child's evening guitar lessons bring them great joy, and a car is the only realistic option?

I also recommend to look at the wider picture of how your life inspire others.

In 2018 and 2019, I never used the (petrol) car unless it was all of us family together, like a family trip out (if there are 4 of you in the car instead of 2 minutes-4 hours of life lost/suffering caused it's now 0.5 minutes to 1 hour), or taking the kids to school. For 2 years+ I never once drove a car if it was just me on my own (except driving the car to local mechanic for repair, filling the car with recycling and going to the local recycling centre, or transporting something very large).

Now this had many benefits. I saved money on petrol and maintenance. I enjoyed it when i was moving faster than the cars due to traffic jams. I became fitter. I got closer to nature - I once stopped while cycling along because I heard beautiful bird song I'd never heard before. The benefits balanced the sacrifices. I was very happy with that life. Overall net sacrifice was about zero.

And yet - this inspired no one to do the same. When people asked me why I was cycling everywhere and I answered "climate change" I got blank stares.
My footprint was low but I may have demonstrated (from others' perspective) that saving the planet is difficult and a bit mad, and I guess they are more likely to think "fuck that, I would never do that". At no point did anyone say to me "cycling home for miles in the dark after the movie finishes- what a good idea, I'll join you."

Since I got an electric car (in April or May) the conversations have been better and more positive. I talk about how smooth and quiet a ride it is, and how I love never having to go to the petrol station and queue up because I can just plug in when I get home, and I love saving 70-80% on fuel. I think every 1 electric car bought probably inspires 1 other person to get one instead of a petrol/diesel car (in some cases, stopping a new petrol/diesel car being purchased).

If no-one early adopts electric cars then everyone will be stuck with petrol and diesel indefinitely. Therefore buying an electric car as an early adopter is arguably as good for the planet as living off a bicycle. Your personal footprint is certainly higher, but you may cause more positive influencing impact. At least for now - once electric cars get to the majority that would no longer be a good argument.

I am considering driving my car on a fun road trip to somewhere, perhaps Pucon here in Chile, at some point once COVID is over. That would be a 1500km round trip with CO2 emissions of 150kg. That's an estimated few hours of human life lost, or about 24 hours of suffering/life lost using my 8x multiplier. At first glance, it looks morally debatable to do that for a week or two's holiday. However, if I complete such a trip in an electric car, I think it would make me a more powerful advocate for electric cars. When someone says "I could never get an electric car because of long trips" it's one thing to say "there are charging points and I've seen reports and videos from others that have driven far with no major problems, the only reason I haven't is because I haven't needed to". It's quite another to be able to say "I drove this car to Pucon (whichis as far or further than most people will have ever driven in a petrol car) and it was fine." I think people will respond better to the latter. I think that 150kg CO2e of that trip would be offset by the inspirational effect on someone else, so I may do the trip.

[NickNack]

Should we be killing other humans on purpose to save animals? Isn't that kind of where your logic leads to?

Don't know about you, but I don't want to spend the rest of my life in jail.

I'm not saying we should do that, but isn't that where your logic leads to? Or that its not immoral to kill other people since it saves other animals even if you do go to jail? Not to say its a moral obligation but its not a moral wrong doing, according to your logic, not according to me. Unless there is something I am missing with your logic?

[NickNack]

@Jamie in Chile
Do you believe that its ok to gain pleasure off of someone else's suffering even if the suffering isn't as strong as the pleasure gained? Or do you think we gain suffering from not being able to contribute to global warming unnecessarily, and is it enough suffering that we have the right to make others suffer in the way that is caused through global warming?

[Jebus]

isn't that where your logic leads to? Or that its not immoral to kill other people since it saves other animals even if you do go to jail? Not to say its a moral obligation but its not a moral wrong doing, according to your logic, not according to me. Unless there is something I am missing with your logic?

There is nothing novel about my claim. Most people agree that it would be ok to kill a mass murderer or a serial child abuser, and even Christians thought Bonhoeffer did the right thing in trying to kill Hitler. The only "unusual" thing about my claim is that I, as opposed to most other people, include all sentient animals as victims worthy of protection from those who harm them.

[Jamie in Chile]

@Jamie in Chile
Do you believe that its ok to gain pleasure off of someone else's suffering even if the suffering isn't as strong as the pleasure gained? Or do you think we gain suffering from not being able to contribute to global warming unnecessarily, and is it enough suffering that we have the right to make others suffer in the way that is caused through global warming?

The first question is a difficult question, the others I don't quite understand.

To the first question.

Case A
Something gives us 7 days of great joy, but causes 10 days of suffering (of a roughly equal intensity to our joy) to someone else, I have a clear sense that this is wrong. We should not do it.

Case B
Something gives us 7 days of great joy, but causes 6 days of suffering (of a roughly equal intensity to our joy) to someone else, I think this becomes less clear cut, but my intuition is that we probably should NOT do it.

Case C
Something gives us 7 days of great joy, but causes 1 day of suffering (of a roughly equal intensity to our joy) to someone else. Here my intuition is that we probably should do it.

Case D
Something would cause us a whole lifetime of wild happiness, but cause 1 second of minor annoyance to someone else. Here it seems clear that we should do it.

Don't feel overly guilty about any of this though. Just do the best you can and live your life happily.

[NickNack]

@Jebus
I guess the question becomes are people who consume animal products bad enough that its morally ok to kill them? I guess your answer would differ based on how much deontology/consequentialism you use. I'm not going to lie though, this topic makes me a bit uncomfortable and I have a gut reaction to say its wrong to kill other people to save animals but I cant really justify it philosophically.