Podcast Summary: "Consider the Shrimp"

Unexplainable (Vox), aired October 22, 2025
Host: Dylan Matthews

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode tackles a fundamental question in ethics: "Do numbers count?" – especially when applied not to humans, but to the countless animals consumed by humans, with a particular focus on shrimp. Using the lens of philosophical debates about aggregating suffering and benefit, host Dylan Matthews explores what happens when we extend moral arithmetic to nonhuman life. Through interviews, data, and a blend of humor and seriousness, the episode dives deep into why (and whether) we should care about the welfare of vast populations of shrimp, the science behind their sentience, and the real-life implications of acting (or not acting) on these conclusions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The "Numbers Game" in Ethics (01:08–06:55)

• Philosophical Dilemma: Matthews introduces John Torick’s infamous 1977 philosophy paper arguing that suffering cannot be simply added across individuals and that, in life-or-death situations, numbers should not determine decisions.
• Philosophy Seminar Example: The classic pill/life-saving dilemma is introduced—should you save five people with one pill each or one person who needs all five? Torick controversially suggests flipping a coin.
  • Quote: “Torick argues...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.” — Dylan Matthews (03:08)
• Philosophical Backlash: Derek Parfit refutes Torick; “Each one counts for one. That is why more count for more.” (06:15) Parfit urges the intuitive value of counting numbers in moral reasoning.

2. Counting Shrimp — The Scope of Animal Suffering (06:55–12:00)

• Staggering Numbers: Matthews presents data illustrating the incomprehensible scale of animal deaths, zeroing in on shrimp: “Roughly 440 billion shrimp are killed on farms each year...expected to hit 760 billion by 2033.” — (08:43)
• Moral Implication: If numbers count, shouldn’t shrimp’s suffering dominate animal rights conversations?
• Personal Dilemma: Matthews questions his own philosophical commitments: “Does the seemingly basic conclusion of wanting to save five humans ahead of one commit me to a kind of totalizing shrimp fanaticism?” (10:31)

3. Meeting the Shrimp Advocates (12:00–14:35)

• Andres Jimenez Zurria and Shrimp Welfare Project: After leaving finance, Jimenez Zurria co-founds the only global organization dedicated entirely to shrimp welfare.
  • Motivation: Inspired by moral comparison, realizing the massive gap in attention to shrimp suffering.
    • Quote: “He just wanted to do some good...At some point I decided I should be doing something beyond just making someone else richer.” — Matthews recounting Jimenez Zurria’s career change (12:43)
• Focusing on the Real-World Experience of Shrimp:
  • Ice Slurry "Stunning": Common method for killing shrimp; scientific uncertainty if it actually reduces suffering or if it’s “just paralyzing, feeling pain but unable to move.” (13:36)
  • Farmer Insights: Most farmers believe shrimp feel pain and take steps to reduce suffering (13:58).
    • “One farmer said it was important to him to make the shrimp feel free.” (14:12)
• Scientific Consensus: Evidence suggests shrimp possess nociceptors (pain receptors) and respond to painkillers, but research is sparse. A 2022 LSE review recommends treating all decapods, including shrimp, as sentient (14:09–14:30).

4. Modest Reforms, Hard Realities (14:35–15:15, 17:43–20:00)

• Practical Recommendations: Shrimp Welfare Project provides free electric stunning machines to reduce pain, but requires slight improvements in living conditions (space, water quality, avoidance of eye-stock ablation).
  • Definition: Eye-stock ablation—cutting off female shrimps’ eyes without anesthesia to increase egg production.
• Scale vs. Scope: The group, with only 10 full-time staff, aims to help hundreds of billions of animals—without urging abolition of shrimp-eating.
• Quote: “They're not even asking people to stop eating shrimp. So who could be mad about that? Many, many people, it turns out.” — Dylan Matthews (15:08)

5. Public Reception & “Shrimp Centrism” (17:43–24:06)

• Blowback and Scope Sensitivity: A viral defense of shrimp welfare by blogger Flo receives 1.4 million views and ample hate.
• Concept of Scope Sensitivity: People struggle to weigh moral concerns as the numbers grow (plastic straws vs. fishing nets serves as an analogy, 18:30).
  • Quote: “Focusing on plastic straws instead of on fishing nets, that's scope insensitivity. The casual dismissal of shrimp welfare struck Flo as a similar kind.” (19:10)
• Moral Absurdity or Basic Compassion?: Does taking numbers seriously commit one to “shrimp fanaticism”—valuing a billion shrimp over a human? Matthews discusses public discomfort with this implication.
• Wisdom from the Activists: Jimenez Zurria doesn’t try to precisely weigh shrimp vs. human suffering but concludes helping shrimp is “important enough for some people to spend some time on.” (22:27)
  • Quote: “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.” — Dylan Matthews quoting Jimenez Zurria (22:25)
• Impact: Shrimp Welfare Project reaches farms producing ~4 billion shrimp/year (~1% of the world supply).

6. Final Reflection

• Balanced View: Matthews ultimately advocates “shrimp centrism”—accepting that numbers matter but acknowledging our imprecision and fallibility as humans.
  • Quote: “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...maybe you should save a billion shrimp instead of one human.” (21:02)
  • Quote: “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.” — Dylan Matthews (24:03)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments with Timestamps

• “When I first read Torick, my reaction was basically, is this guy fucking with me?” — Dylan Matthews (05:26)
• “The number of shrimp killed every year is about four times greater than the number of humans who have ever lived in human history.” — Blogger Flo (19:30, paraphrased by Matthews)
• “Our ability to intelligently compare starts to erode” at scales of millions, billions, trillions — Dylan Matthews (18:08)
• “Are you just saying this because you're bad at math?” — Ronny Chang, The Daily Show, to a shrimp-skeptical activist (20:18)
• “People didn’t fulminate about the evils of prioritizing shrimp...They asked how they could know if the shrimp they’re buying is ethically raised and slaughtered.” — Dylan Matthews (23:12)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 01:08 – Introduces the numbers dilemma in ethics
• 06:55 – Moves from philosophy to animal numbers, shrimp in particular
• 12:00 – Interview with Andres Jimenez Zurria and his shrimp journey
• 13:36 – Describes standard shrimp slaughter methods
• 14:35 – Outlines the Shrimp Welfare Project’s reforms
• 17:43 – Flo’s viral shrimp defense and public blowback
• 18:08 – Explains scope sensitivity and “shrimp fatalism”
• 20:18 – Recap of The Daily Show segment and quantitative debates
• 22:25 – Jimenez Zurria’s practical approach to weighing shrimp welfare
• 24:03 – Matthews’ closing thoughts on moral balancing

Tone & Style

The episode combines scholarly curiosity with conversational, occasionally irreverent humor (“shrimp fanaticism,” “gross ocean bugs”), aiming to keep heavy philosophical and moral questions approachable for general listeners. Matthews voices skepticism, self-analysis, and empathy, never losing sight of the strangeness—and the stakes—of the dilemma.