Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
Dylan Matthews
Support for Unexplainable comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude. You know those questions that keep you up at night, the ones that make you fall down rabbit holes until 2am Claude is an AI that can help you if you want to dive deeper instead of rushing to surface level answers. You can use Claude to help work through the complexity. You can upload documents, you can search the web, and you can explore different angles on problems that genuinely interest you. You can try Claude for free at Claude. AI Unexplainable.
- [00:33]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own, plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.
- [01:09]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
We all know it's better to save five people's lives than to save only one. But in 1977, one philosopher dared to argue maybe it isn't should the Numbers Count by John Torek is among the few modern philosophy papers that might fairly be described as infamous. When I was taught it as an undergrad, it was presented as something between a cautionary tale and a punching bag, a set of dubious arguments in favor of a conclusion that was so absurd it was astonishing that a respected professor would put his name to it. Here's how it goes. Imagine there's six people. They're all very sick, and they're all going to die if they don't get treated with life saving medicine. Five of those six people need just one pill and they'll survive. The sixth person, let's call him David, needs five pills to survive. It just so happens you have exactly five pills. What should you do? Most people, Torick concedes, will conclude that dividing the drug supply five ways, saving five lives is better than giving it all to David. But this would be a mistake. The conclusion that it's better to save five than one, he argues, is based on a belief that you can somehow sum up suffering and happiness between different people so that the suffering of five people adds up to more than the suffering of one. Toric objects Suffering is not additive. In this way, he insists, David dying is bad for David. One of the other five sick people dying is bad for that person. There's no such thing as bad for the world or bad full stop. David is just One guy, you can't compare his suffering to that of the other five people all put together. That's not fair to David. Toric is basically saying you should compare apples to apples. Is David dying better than one of the others dying? No, right? None of the five others will suffer more by dying than David would. Thus, Toric argues that the drug's owner should not just reflexively save the 5. Instead of David, she should instead flip a coin. Heads the five live. Tails David lives. That is the best way to show equal concern for each person. When I first read Toric, my reaction was basically, is this guy fucking with me? Would he flip a coin, not just like between one and five, but say it's one in a million. One in a billion. Like, imagine a world leader who wants to do a nuclear strike just to save his best friend. He knows a billion people will die, but he wants to save his best friend. Is that okay? Does John Torick think that's okay? Like, what is wrong with this man? I apparently was not alone in this reaction. A moral philosopher named Derek Parfit, who was legendarily even tempered and courteous even for a philosopher, was made so furious by Toric's argument that by the end of the essay he wrote in reply, he was sort of reduced to lecturing Torick the way you would a preschooler. Why do we save the larger number? He wrote, because we do give equal weight to saving each. Each one counts for one. That is why more count for more. And yet, over the years, I've encountered a few philosophers and philosophy adjacent folks who are, if totally on board with Toric, at least Toric curious. They're skeptical that the numbers matter. I didn't really understand where a person like that could possibly be coming from. Or rather, I didn't understand until the shrimp. This is unexplainable. I'm Dylan Matthews and today on the show we consider the prawn. Let's say that Toric is wrong and the numbers do count. Here then, are a couple of numbers. There are, as of this moment, roughly 8.1 billion human beings on Earth. According to the research group Faunalytics, those humans killed about 3.5 billion mammals in 2023 and over 20 times as many birds, including 78 billion chickens. But just as there's a gap between mammals and birds, there's an even bigger gap between birds and fish. No one knows with any kind of certainty how many fish humans kill each year. What about shellfish, though? The research group Rethink Priorities estimated recently that roughly 440 billion shrimp are killed on farms each year and they expect that number to hit 760 billion by 2033. So those are the numbers. Now, suppose you care about animals welfare, or at least you think that humans have some kind of duties to the animals that we raise in farms, or that we take from the wild in order to feed ourselves. Suppose further that you think shrimp count even a little bit. They don't count as much as a human, they don't count as much as a cow, maybe even a trout. But suppose they still count in some way as animals that are capable of feeling pain and are worthy of some consideration. If the numbers count, then surely it follows that the most pressing matter in the world of animal rights is the plight of the shrimp. It is all well and good for 22 year old me to furiously insist in a philosophy seminar that John Torick is a madman. And of course the number should count. But if that is so, should these numbers count? Does the seemingly basic conclusion of wanting to save five humans ahead of one commit me to a kind of totalizing shrimp fanaticism? How far down this road is 35 year old me willing to walk? Andres Jimenez Zurria has walked down this road at least a little ways. In 2020, he left a career private equity to co found shrimp welfare project, which is exactly what it sounds like when I asked Jimenezeria about his switch. Some of his explanations feel like what someone would say if they're leaving a finance job to work at a soup kitchen, or quitting a lucrative plastic surgery practice to help civilians injured in war. He just wanted to do some good. My wife works with refugees, he told me, and I started to compare what she was doing and what I was doing. At some point I decided I should be doing something beyond just making someone else richer. So he joined a group that helps people create new charities. The group gave him a menu of serious problems not currently attracting much charitable attention. One of the items on that menu, as on many menus, was shrimp. At first, him and his zaria recalled thinking, these folks have really lost their minds. Then he kept reading and he saw the massive number of shrimp being farmed every year and the evidence that shrimp are sentient, that they are at the very least able to feel pain, able to suffer, and the fact that literally no one on planet Earth seemed to care. So before he knew it, he was founding a shrimp welfare group. It is, to his knowledge, still the only group singularly dedicated to helping shrimp in the world. You should talk to him in his zorria sometime. He's very effective at taking your views of the shrimp dilemma out of the philosophy seminar and into the ice slurry. The ice slurry is one of the major methods through which shrimp are killed or not killed, so much as transported while slowly dying. In theory, the low temperature in the slurry stuns the shrimp before they die, so they don't feel pain as they freeze to death. In theory, we do know that subjecting shrimp to cold ice or water reduces their activity, but it's not clear if this means they're stunned and no longer experiencing pain. They might just be paralyzed, feeling pain but unable to move. It's entirely possible that the shrimp in the slurry are freezing to death slowly and feeling the entire thing. But some shrimp don't go in the slurry. They're transported alive. So what about them? Shrimp Welfare Project found that many of those end up asphyxiated or crushed to death in crowded containers with just a small amount of water or ice. When Jimenezeria and his team investigated Indian shrimp farms, they found that 95% of the farmers they talked to believed the animals they tended could feel painful. When they saw the shrimp suffering, they would offer medicines or clean their water to make them feel better. One farmer said it was important to him to make the shrimp feel free. While there is less scientific evidence on the mental state of shrimp than that of other shellfish like, say, crabs, London School of Economics researchers have found evidence that backs these farmers up. The authors reported high confidence that Panaid shrimps, the kind of shrimp most people eat, have nociceptors or neurons that can respond to external stimuli that can hurt the shrimp. They also reviewed some studies showing that shrimp respond to painkillers by becoming calmer and grooming the hurt area on their bodies. Less more signs of shrimp's capacity to feel pain. The evidence is thin, the review concluded, but mostly because it's barely been researched. Whenever crustaceans have been closely examined by scientists, strong evidence of sentience is invariably found. In the end, the authors recommended that the British government treat all decapods, including shrimp, as sentient animals. So what do we do about it? Shrimp Welfare Project's suggestions are quite modest. They offer shrimp farms free electric stunning machines. Their theory is that being shocked to death by electricity has got to be less painful than being slowly frozen or crushed to death. But to get the stunning machines, farms have to do a couple other favors for the shrimp. They have to give each shrimp a minimum amount of space. The shrimp must have enough room to move around to burrow and to rest. Their water must be kept clean and free of noxious chemicals. And the shrimp have to come from hatcheries that do not practice ice stock ablation. That's when farmers take female shrimps and cut their eyes off without anesthetic. Hatcheries like this because it makes the shrimps lay slightly more eggs.
- [14:35]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
At the.
- [14:35]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
End of the day. Shrimp Welfare Project is a tiny nonprofit. They have about 10 full time staff and they're working to help hundreds of billions of animals die less painful deaths. They're not trying to bring down the entire multi billion dollar shrimp industry. They're not even asking people to stop eating shrimp. So who could be mad about that? Many, many people, it turns out, can be mad about that. That's after the break.
- [15:16]
Dylan Matthews
Support for Unexplainable comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude. Claude is an AI that can help you explore different angles on all kinds of questions. Like the other day I was watching the Red Sox and they played this sound after a strikeout and I was like, huh. I don't remember when that became a thing, but it also wasn't something that I could just search for easily. So I asked Claude. He gave me some sources. I tracked him down and before I knew it, I had the definitive history of the I also use Claude when I'm curious about genuinely complicated things. I'll ask it something big. We'll go back and forth to hone exactly what I'm looking for. And yeah, it does get things wrong sometimes, but when I double check or ask for a citation, it'll give me a better source. Now it's important to know how to use Claude well, like ask it follow up questions. Actually check out the citations it gives you. But if you do, Claude can be a powerful tool. It helps me find articles and primary documents that I never would have come across. And it helps me dig wider and deeper, all while staying in control of the digging. You can try Claude for free at Claude AI Unexplainable and see why the world's best problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner.
- [16:38]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
Morning Zoe.
- [16:39]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
Jeff Bridges why are you still living above our garage?
- [16:42]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
I want to be in a T Mobile commercial like you. Teach me.
- [16:44]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
Soldana I couldn't possibly AT T Mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate Pro camera system.
- [16:53]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
Impressive. Let me try AT T Mobile. You can save up to 20% versus the other big guys. You heard them. T Mobile is the best place to get the new iPhone 17 Pro on us with eligible traded in any condition.
- [17:05]
Dylan Matthews
Check them out to see how much you could save versus the other big.
- [17:07]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
Guys@T mobile.com switch every day, millions of customers engage with AI agents like me. We resolve queries fast, we work 247 and we're helpful, knowledgeable and empathetic. We're built to be the voice of the brands we serve. Sierra is the platform for building better, more human customer experiences with AI. No hold music, no generic answers, no frustration. Visit Sierra AI to learn more.
- [17:43]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
When the philosophy blogger Flo wrote a piece defending the importance of shrimp welfare, she was rewarded with some 1.4 million views of her X post and a barrage of hate from enemies of the shrimp. Flo isn't an animal ethicist at all. She told me I'd be so bored if I did that. It's like studying the ethics of punching random people in the face. Just don't do it. The point of her post was to explore the idea of scope sensitivity. Scope sensitivity is, roughly put, the ethical concept that it's sometimes a good idea to count stuff. Sometimes, as when reading John Torick, the importance of counting seems obvious. It matters whether it's one person or five people who are at risk of dying, but especially when numbers reach into the millions and billions and trillions, our ability to intelligently compare starts to erode. Maybe my favorite example is plastic straws. Over the last decade, huge amounts of global effort have gone into moving away from single use plastic straws. My favorite coffee shop in Washington, D.C. has adopted this cardboard straw in it has all the tensile strength of a chocolate eclair. But even the most alarming estimates of plastic straw usage suggested that straws account for at most 0.03% of the plastic waste dumped into the world's oceans every year. By contrast, fishing nets make up 46% of the waste. Focusing on plastic straws instead of on fishing nets, that's scope insensitivity. The casual dismissal of shrimp welfare struck flow as a similar kind of scope and sensitivity. The number of shrimp killed every year is about four times greater than the number of humans who have ever lived in human history. If you think that shrimp matter at all, even if you think shrimp matter only 1% or 0.1% as much as people matter, these numbers should alarm you. The scope matters. Ronny Chang, the Daily show correspondent, once did a segment on shrimp welfare project inspired by the furious substack debate over it. He had penetrating questions for Jimenez area for example, is this a sex thing? But the most trenchant questions he saved for an animal activist criticizing the quantitative approach of the group. Please don't be offended by this, he said. Are you just saying this because you're bad at math? There are two layers to the negative reaction to shrimp welfare. One is, well, it's shrimp. They're tiny. It's in the name. They look like gross ocean bugs. But the other layer is, I think, more fundamental. It's not about shrimp, it's about counting. Shrimp Welfare Project is the idea that the numbers ought to count taken to the absurd? Sure, you start with saving five humans rather than one, but once you get on that trolley, the last stop is the view that maybe you should save a billion shrimp instead of one human. As I start to spiral out about this, about this choice between what seems like a kind of moral nihilism where five lives don't count for more than just one, and a kind of shrimp fanaticism that obliges me to consign myself and my wife and child to monkish poverty so that we may serve the crustaceans who need us. I remember a man who takes neither of these positions, Andres Jimenez Zurria. He told me that he had tried to do this trolley exercise with his co founder where they compared the value of shrimps versus other animals or humans, and they dropped it five minutes in because it was, in his words, irrelevant. The point isn't whether shrimp are more important than humans, he said. The question is whether this thing is important enough for some people to spend some time on. The answer for us was incontrovertibly yes. The public reaction to press coverage like the Daily show appearance, he said, was overwhelmingly positive. People didn't fulminate about the evils of prioritizing shrimp lives over those of humans. They asked how they could know if the shrimp they're buying is ethically raised and slaughtered. They asked for information about shrimp consciousness and pain awareness. They donated money. Shrimp Welfare Project hasn't exactly taken over the shrimp industry, but it's making progress. They say they've worked with farms producing about 4 billion shrimp a year, or about 1% of all farmed shrimp. Jimenez Zaria expresses a worldview that I've come to appreciate. You could call it shrimp centrism. The numbers matter. John Torick is wrong. But we are humans. We are often wrong. Our information is often imprecise. We, and certainly no one, has enough information to conclude that shrimp welfare is the most important thing on earth. What we probably do have enough information to conclude is that shrimp matter at least a bit and maybe it's good that 4 billion of them a year get to die less painful deaths. This episode was written by me, Dylan Matthews Production help from Bird, Pinkerton, Jorge Just and Erica Huang. Editing from Bird and Jorge with music mixing and sound design from Erica Wong. Meredith Haddonott runs the show. Julia Longoria is our Editorial director. As always, thank you to Brian Resnik for co creating the show. If you have any thoughts about our show, please send us an email. We're@ unexplainableox.com we really love hearing from you and we read every email. Yes everyone, we'd also love it if you could leave us a review or a rating wherever you listen. It actually does help us find new listeners. You can also support this show and all of Vox's journalism by joining our membership program. You can go to vox.commembers to get ad free podcasts and a whole bunch of other goodies. And if you do become a member because of Unexplainable, let us know. It would really make us happy. Unexplainable is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network and we'll be back next week.
- [25:18]
Sponsor Voice / Advertiser
Support for this show comes from Notion. There's only one of you, Only so many hours, only so much focus. What if you had a teammate who could work just like you do with all the context you have, but faster? That's what Notion AI feels like. Notion is the connected workspace where teams create, plan, track and ship together. Now with Notion Agent you can get an AI teammate that finishes the job. Notion Agent can do anything you can do in Notion completing multi step actions end to end to move work forward while you focus on hard decisions. You assign the task, your Notion Agent does the work. Try Notion and Notion Agent for free@notion.com Box.
- [26:03]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
Limu game and Doug Here we have the Limu Emu in its natural habitat helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally Doug Limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us. Cut the camera. They see us.
- [26:25]
Dylan Matthews
Only pay for what you need@liberty mutual.com.
- [26:27]
Dylan Matthews / Narrator
Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings Very unwritten.
- [26:31]
Dylan Matthews
By Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and affiliates Excludes Massachusetts.