neuralnerd

Les agences sanitaires internationales ont globalement à peu près toutes le même avis :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Avis_des_agences_internationales,_nationales_et_régionales_de_sécurité_sanitaire_ou_alimentaire

Non pas de VPN. Firefox sous Linux.

Moi ça ne marche pas non plus, j’ai un captcha et quand je le résout j’en ai un nouveau.

Si tu ne connais pas ses vidéos je te les conseille vivement. C’est touffu et un peu long mais très complet et bien sourcé par des trucs sérieux.

Pour rester sur le sujet il y a notamment sa vidéo « La voiture électrique est-elle écologique ? » et celle où il cherche à savoir si on va pouvoir produire assez de batteries : Voiture électrique: un problème de batterie ?

La voiture électrique est du bon sens pour remplacer l’essence, mais ça va être compliqué de tout électrifié.

Oui, mais il me semble que tous ceux qui se sont un peu sérieusement penché sur le sujet disent ça, y compris BonPote.

Sauf que cette interview sert d’argument à ceux qui disent qu’au contraire la voiture électrique ne fait pas partie des solutions car elle est pire que la voiture thermique. Il y a au moins 3 commentaires dans ton post LinkedIn qui disent plus ou moins ça en mentionnant cette interview.

il y a quand même une zone d’ombre sur ce qu’on est en train de vivre, et les pronostiques peuvent aller de l’optimiste si on se bouge (mais ça sera quand même dur), et on ne fait pas grand chose et on se prend le mur. Valérie Masson-Delmotte, qui est plutôt optimiste, disait dans son dernier colloque qu’ils nous restaient 6 ans pour agir.

Oui, je relevais juste que l’affirmation du titre est lunaire et qu’en plus la source ne dit pas du tout ça.

ça reste un influenceur

Je ne sais pas ce que tu mets derrière « influenceur », mais c’est surtout un vulgarisateur.

C’est pour ça que j’ai linké le CaptainFact, où le 1er commentaire est le fact check proposé par SysText.

Malheureusement ce lien dans le premier commentaire ne fonctionne plus.

Ces interviews ont également été retweet par Jancovici, qui est également un habitué de l’émission.

Il est lui aussi critiqué pour faire un certain nombre d’affirmations sans fondement scientifique. Apparemment Le Réveilleur travaille sur un sujet où c’est le cas justement.

faut aussi écouter ce qu’elle a à dire

Bien sûr, et personne ne dit qu’elle (ou Jancovici) ne dit que des conneries, même dans les liens que j’ai postés.

Le problème c’est que certaines de ses erreurs sont largement reprises, notamment par des gens qui prônent le status quo. Donc quand on diffuse cette interview c’est bien de préciser qu’il y a des erreurs importantes dedans.

BonPote en parle dans un article :

Depuis au moins deux ans, dans les commentaires et posts de Bon Pote sur les réseaux sociaux et plus largement tous les posts qui concernant la voiture électrique, vous pouvez retrouver des vidéos de Guillaume Pitron et d’Aurore Stéphant comme preuve irréfutable que la voiture électrique est une hérésie.

La source pour cette affirmation un peu folle (liée dans l’article) c’est une étude qui dit qu’on doit réduire les objets connectés, remplacer les écrans plats par de la réalité virtuelle ou des vidéo projecteurs LED, augmenter la durée de vie des équipements et réduire les besoins des services numériques, dans les 10 ans à venir.

Passer de ces recommendations à « il n’y en aura plus de numérique dans 30 ans » demande une grosse contorsion intellectuelle et une bonne dose de malhonnêteté.

Aurore Stéphant dit un certain nombre de conneries dans cette interview. Certaines sont relevées sur le lien captainfact, sinon :

• https://twitter.com/Le_Reveilleur/status/1633444154553389063
• https://twitter.com/Kako_line/status/1487747761407774720
• https://twitter.com/Le_Reveilleur/status/1634125115574165505

Je conseillerai plutôt les vidéos du Réveilleur (longues aussi).

Il avait aussi fait une interview (1h) sur la chaîne youtube « Greenletter Club » : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITfaSfYAJo.

Swatting a mosquito generally doesn’t induce suffering, if it’s done quickly. And since they are not social animals other mosquito probably won’t suffer from the loss.

This is like saying it is okay to kill a lonely person with no friends and family, as long as it is an instant death.

No, it is more like saying it doesn’t cause suffering, which is true. Whether it’s ok or not is another matter, but some could argue can be.

I don’t agree with you that suffering is the single center concept to base your moral judgement on these issues. Not all living things that i care about are able to suffer, and I do not care about all living things that do suffer.

I didn’t say suffering is the single center concept to base moral judgment on, although some moral philosophers argue it is (negative utilitarians). But suffering is the main problem with speciesism: we accept much more suffering on non-human animals than we do on on humans, for no good reason.

If you care about things that cannot suffer, then you do not care for their well being, since they can’t experience well being. It may be a semantic problem here, because I thought caring was about the other’s well being.

Anyway what you do care about is not really relevant unless you consider we should just follow our instinctive morality. What I was discussing is what we should care about.

I do not care that i cause a mosquito suffering by killing it (wounding it), if it is sucking my blood, or even just being annoying when flying around me, because I value my comfort above its existence (and suffering). I expect you do the same? This is speciesism.

No, I would avoid causing suffering to the mosquito (for example by moving it our of the room or protecting myself). And if killing it is the only practical way to make it stop being an unacceptable annoyance I would still try to minimize its suffering. It’s not speciesism because I would apply the same logic if it was a human or any other species.

That’s like saying people have a good reason to beat people who don’t look like them: racism.

Except we both agree that racism is wrong. We do not both agree that speciesism is wrong.

And yet speciesism is very similar to racism. It’s the same mechanism. Racism is a discrimination on irrelevant characteristics like skin color, and speciesism is a discrimination on irrelevant characteristics like cognitive ability, cuteness, ability to talk, etc.

In both cases these characteristics are irrelevant when we try to decide whether we can cause suffering to these beings. The only relevant characteristic is whether they can suffer.

But it seems to me nearly all animals fall under this umbrella of “some level of sentience”, I found this paper highlighting that many insects seem to have cognitive abilities, and might be capable of feeling harm. So to what extent must this go, can you not swat a mosquito in fear of its suffering?

Swatting a mosquito generally doesn’t induce suffering, if it’s done quickly. And since they are not social animals other mosquito probably won’t suffer from the loss.

But yes, if an animal is probably sentient you should avoid inflicting pain to it, for the same reason you should avoid inflicting pain to humans: because they can suffer.

But this is really just discussing the semantics of the word “harm”, the real point is that you are doing something to the organism that goes against its natural interests.

Indeed, but going against natural interests or not is not the point. The point is about suffering. And more specifically the fact that the amount of suffering we inflict to animals to eat their meat would be inacceptable if it was done to humans.

If we do not follow speciest dogma, we might as well eat other humans. Indeed meat eaters don’t really have good reasons to exclude human meat.

Yes they do, speciesism. A quite natural reason.

That’s like saying people have a good reason to beat people who don’t look like them: racism.

So in your ethical theory, harm doesn’t matter at all?

You seem to follow some kind of deontology. There’s no obligation in your system to not cause unnecessary harm? I guess you have some obligation not to hurt your dog even if you like doing that. Isn’t that obligation related to the fact the dog would be harmed if you did?

Maybe it’s just a difference between consequentialism and deontologism, but I was convinced deontologists generally had some rules that prevent unnecessary harm. They don’t?

There’s at least Tom Regan who was a deontologist (at least in his book The Case for Animal Rights) and talks about harm:

In Regan’s view, not to be used as a means entails the right to be treated with respect, which includes the right not to be harmed.

deontological ethics are explicitly not about that.

I guess it depends on the philosopher, but at least one includes “doing no harm” in the obligations[1]:

Ross [20] modified Kant’s deontology, allowing a plurality of duty-based ethical principles, such as doing no harm, promise keeping, etc.

can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?

Probably all consequentialism and at least utilitarianism (harm decreases the global well being). Negative consequentialism is more specifically focused on reducing suffering/harm.

what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?

About all ethics is about reducing harm. If you don’t know that harming is bad I don’t think we can have a discussion.

you can’t prove plants aren’t sentient.

And you can’t prove something is sentient. But scientists have criteria that help determine whether a species is sentient. See this review for example.

even if you could, why should sentience matter?

I already answered. If something can’t be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.

what ethical system even accounts for sentience as a factor of right behavior?

About all animal welfare:

Respect for animal welfare is often based on the belief that nonhuman animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being or suffering, especially when they are under the care of humans.[4]

The question was “why is eating meat bad?”, my answer is something like “because to have meat you must harm animals”, and someone answered that “we always harm something when we eat” and my answer is “no, there are foods that you can’t harm because they are not sentient”.

Because if something is not sentient it cannot have negative experiences, so it can’t be harmed.

The term sentience has no concrete meaning, so how can you base your moral judgements on this?

It does have a concrete meaning. Scientific papers usually define what they are studying. For example the Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans has a definition. It also has criteria to evaluate it.

Plenty of plant life has senses and are able to “feel” things.

Having reactions to external stimulus is different from having feelings. Feelings require consciousness, or sentience.

Even having nociceptors doesn’t mean you can experience pain (see the above review in the “Defining sentience” section).

If something (living or not) cannot experience suffering then you can’t harm it, by definition

This follows no definition of harm that I am aware of, and I do not agree with it. If you are not aware that you have been harmed, you are still harmed. So you should also be able to be harmed even when you could not be aware of it. Therefore, I do not accept this sentiocentric (just learned this word) argument.

Yes you can be harmed without knowing it, but it still must have a negative effect on you. If something can’t have negative (or positive) experience then how can you say it’s being harmed?

If I throw a rock to the ground, it doesn’t make sense to say I harmed the rock, because a rock can’t experience being harmed. Being sentient is having this ability to experience being harmed. That’s why I meant it’s by definition that non sentient beings can’t be harmed. The word exists to distinguish what can and cannot experience harm (among other feelings).

There are good reasons to treat different beings differently but they should be based on the beings’ interests, not their species

And this is one of those reasons. A human’s (or any other animal’s) continued existence is mutually exclusive with the food’s continued existence.

But having food doesn’t necessarily mean harming something. And even if it does, different foods have different level of harm. We can choose the foods that minimize harm.

If we do not follow speciest dogma, we might as well eat other humans.

Indeed meat eaters don’t really have good reasons to exclude human meat.