My guess is this is obvious, but IMO it seems extremely unlikely to me that bee-experience is remotely as important to care about as cow experience. Enough as to make statements like this just sound approximately insane:
97% of years of animal life brought about by industrial farming have been through the honey industry (though this doesn’t take into account other insect farming).
Like, no, this isn't how this works. This obviously isn't how this works. You can't add up experience hours like this. At the very least use some kind of neuron basis.
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If anyone remotely thinks a bee suffering is 15% (!!!!!!!!) as important as a human suffering, you do not sound like someone who has thought about this reasonably at all. It is so many orders of magnitude away from what sounds reasonable to me that I find myself wanting to look somewhere else but the arguments in things like the Rethink Priorities report (which I ha...
I think that it's pretty reasonable to think that bee suffering is plausibly similarly bad to human suffering. (Though I'll give some important caveats to this in the discussion below.)
More precisely, I think it's plausible that I (and others) think that on reflection[1] that the "bad" part of suffering is present in roughly the same "amount" in bees as in humans such that suffering in both is very comparable. (It's also plausible I'd end up thinking that bee suffering is worse due to e.g. higher clock speed.) This is mostly because I don't strongly think that on reflection I would care about the complex aspects of the suffering or end up caring in a way which is more proportional to neuron count (though these are also plausible).
See also Luke Muehlhauser's post on moral weights which also discusses a way of compute moral weights which implies it's plausible that bees have similar moral weight to humans.[2]
I find the idea that we should be radically uncertain about moral-weight-upon-reflection-for-bees pretty intuitive: I feel extremely uncertain about core questions in morality and philosophy which leaves extremely wide intervals. Upon hearing that some people put substantial mora...
I think we both agree that the underlying question is probably pretty confused, and importantly and relatedly, both probably agree that what we ultimately care about probably will not be grounded in the kind of analysis where you assign moral weights to entities and then sum up their experiences.
The thing that creates a strong feeling of "I feel like people are just being crazy here" in me is the following chain of logic:
There are many additional steps here beyond the "if you take a hedonic utilitarian frame as given, what is your distribution over welfare estimates", each on...
I think we both agree that the underlying question is probably pretty confused, and importantly and relatedly, both probably agree that what we ultimately care about probably will not be grounded in the kind of analysis where you assign moral weights to entities and then sum up their experiences.
I think I narrowly agree on my moral views which are strongly influenced by longtermist-style thinking, though I think "assign weights and add experiences" isn't way off of a perspective I might end up putting a bunch of weight on[1]. However, I do think "what moral weight should we assign bees" isn't a notably more confused question in the context of animal welfare than "how should we prioritize between chicken welfare interventions and pig welfare interventions". So, I think there at least exists a pretty common and broadly reasonable-ish perspective in which this question is sane.
The thing that creates a strong feeling of "I feel like people are just being crazy here" in me is the following chain of logic:
This feels a bit like a motte and bailey to me. Your original claim was "If anyone remotely thinks a bee suffering is 15% (!!!!!!!!) as important as a human suffering, you do no...
Hmm, I guess I think "something basically like hedonic utilitarianism, at least for downside" is pretty plausible.
Maybe a big difference is that I feel like I've generally updated away from putting much weight on moral intuitions / heuristics except with respect to forbidding some actions because they violate norms, are otherwise uncooperative, seem like the sort of thing which would be a bad societal policy, are bad for decision theory reasons, etc. So, relatively weak cases can swing me far because I started off being quite unopinionated without putting that much weight on moral intuitions (which feel like they often come from a source mostly unrelated to what I ultimately terminally care about).
I do agree that just directly using "Rethink Priorities says 15%" without flagging relevant caveats is bad.
A shitty summary of the case I would give would be something like:
we know to be associated with consciousness in humans
To be clear, my opinion is that we have no idea what "areas of the brain are associated with consciousness" and the whole area of research that claims otherwise is bunk.
Strongly seconded.
Suppose that two dozen bees sting a human, and the human dies of anaphylaxis. Is the majority of the tragedy in this scenario the deaths of the bees?
I could be convinced that I have an overly-rosy view of honey production. I have no real information on it besides random internet memes, which give me an impression like 'bees are free to be elsewhere, but stay in a hive where some honey sometimes gets taken because it's a fair trade for a high-quality artificial hive and an indestructible protector.' That might be propaganda by Big Bee. That might be an accurate summary of small-scale beekeepers but not of large-scale honey production. I am not sure, but I could be convinced on this point.
But the general epistemics on display here do not encourage me to view this as a more trustworthy source than internet memes.
Suppose that two dozen bees sting a human, and the human dies of anaphylaxis. Is the majority of the tragedy in this scenario the deaths of the bees?
FYI, this isn't a good characterization of the view that I'm sympathetic to here.
The moral relevance of pain and the moral relevance of death are importantly different. The badness of pain is very simple, and doesn't have to have have much relationship to higher-order functions relating to planning, goal-tracking, or narrativizing, or relationships with others. The badness of death is tied up in all that.
I could totally believe that, at reflective equilibrium, I'll think that if I were to amputate the limb of a bee without anesthetic, the resulting pain is morally equivalent to that of amputating a human limb without anesthetic. But I would be surprised if I come to think that it's equally bad for a human to die and a bee to die.
My guess is this is obvious, but IMO it seems extremely unlikely to me that bee-experience is remotely as important to care about as cow experience.
I agree with this, but would strike the 'extremely'. I don't actually have gears level models for how some algorithms produce qualia. 'Something something, self modelling systems, strange loops' is not a gears level model. I mostly don't think a million neuron bee brain would be doing qualia, but I wouldn't say I'm extremely confident.
Consequently, I don't think people who say bees are likely to be conscious are so incredibly obviously making a mistake that we have to go looking for some signalling explanation for them producing those words.
97% of years of animal life brought about by industrial farming have been through the honey industry (though this doesn’t take into account other insect farming).
This number is nonsense by the way. If you click through to the original source you'll see that it excludes shrimp and other marine animals.
To me, this comment seems very overconfident. We have no idea what it is like to be anything other than humans. I think it makes sense to use things like e.g. number of neurons as an extremely rough estimate of capacity for suffering, but that’s just because we have no good metrics to go off, and something that you can plausibly argue is maybe correlated with capacity for suffering is better than just saying “well, I guess we don’t know”.
Perhaps certain animals in certain niches experience pain much more intensely than humans, because it was adaptive in their environment. Is this true? Probably not! I have no idea! But we have no idea what other animals experience, so for all we know, it could be true, and then all of our rough estimates and approximations are completely worthless!
I just don’t think that saying things like “extremely unlikely” or implying someone hasn’t “thought about [x] reasonably at all” is either productive or particularly accurate when we’re talking about something for which we have very little well-grounded knowledge.
And just to be clear, I do think we should be prioritising based on the little information we do have. I’m not for throwing our hands up and giving in to ignorance. I just think a lot more epistemic humility is warranted around subjects like this where we really know very very little and the stakes are extremely high.
(if I’ve misunderstood you or if something I’ve said is inaccurate, please correct me!)
I mean, I agree that if you want to entertain this as one remote possibility, sure, go ahead, I am not saying morality could not turn out to be weird. But clearly you can construct arguments of similar quality for at least hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands distinct conclusions.
If you currently want to argue that this is true, and a reasonable assumption on which to make your purchase decisions, I would contend that yes, you are also very very confused about how ethics works.
Like, you can have a mutual state of knowledge about the uncertainty and the correct way to process that uncertainty. There are many plausible arguments for why random.org will spit out a specific number if you ask it for a random number, but it is also obvious that you are supposed to have uncertainty about what number it outputs. If someone shows up and claims to be confident that random.org will spit out a specific number next, they are obviously wrong, even if there was actually a non-trivial chance the number they were confident in will be picked.
The top-level post calculates an estimate in-expectation. If you calculate something in-expectation you are integrating your uncertainty. If you estimate that a randomly publicy traded company is worth 10x its ticker price, you might not be definitely wrong, but it is clear that you need to have a good argument, and if you do not have one, then you are obviously wrong.
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life
This doesn't seem at all conservative based on your description of how honey bees are treated, which reads like it was selecting for the worst possible things you could find plausible citations for. In fact, very little of your description makes an argument about how much we should expect such bees to be suffering in an ongoing way day-to-day. What I know of how broiler chickens are treated makes suffering ratios like 0.1% (rather than 10%) seem reasonable to me. This also neglects the quantities that people are likely to consume, which could trivially vary by 3 OoM.
If you're a vegan I think there are a bunch of good reasons not to make exceptions for honey. If you're trying to convince non-vegans who want to cheaply reducing their own contributions to animal suffering, I don't think they should find this post very convincing.
Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
Do you think that makes sense? I haven't looked into how well Salmon compare to bees at problem-solving and the various other stuff you mention, but it feels pretty sus offhand.
Bees are more social than salmon. I haven't put serious thought into it, but I can see an argument that sociality is an important factor in determining intensity-of-consciousness. (Perhaps because sociality requires complex neuron interactions that give rise to certain conscious experiences?)
∆, I will cease eating honey and eat more mussels instead.
Plausibly worth it to post my updated my completely guessed hierarchy of animal foods by how much suffering they cause (ignoring wild animal suffering concerns, based on this post):
I am a beekeeper. I feel that all these assumptions that honeybees in the care of a keeper live horrible lives. In fact, when in the care of a beekeeper, usually their lives are above the average life of a feral colony. The only exception to this is migratory beekeepers, who even with best effort, find it hard to care for the bees under the constant stress of being moved. But, if you like your almonds and oranges for California, I wouldn't complain too much.
Feral colonies live in cavities in trees, usually consisting of 40 liters of space. Even with walls up to 5 inches thick, colonies living in the tree cavities have a %25 to %50 mortality rate, and almost a %75 mortality rate over winter if the colony was established that year. That makes the %30 fatality of bees kept by beekeepers seem rather small. Langstroth hives do have fairy thin walls, but most beekeepers provide a nice windbreak and might even wrap them in black plastic to keep them warm. Even if these were not offered, honeybees can generate their own heat as long as they have calories (honey) to burn. Keepers feed their bees if they seem a little low on stores to assure their survival.
1 kg of honey consumed ...
It seems to me that literally every one of these arguments can be applied to farming which kills untold numbers of insects and other animals no matter hope it is performed. How do you justify eating anything that is not foraged?
In almost all cases, animals are fed farmed alfalfa and grain several times the caloric value of the meat they produce, so even if you're worried about wild animal suffering to grow crops, we'd grow less crops producing food for people to eat directly rather than food for animals to inefficiently convert to meat.
I’m not sure about the rest of the arguments in the post, but it’s worth flagging that a kg to kg comparison of honey to chicken is kind of inappropriate. Essentially no one is eating a comparable amount of honey as a typical carnivore eats chicken (I didn’t, like, try to calculate this, but it seems obviously right).
This company claims theirs is https://www.elevenmadisonhome.com/story/mellody-honey
It's for sale here ($28/9oz) https://www.elevenmadisonhome.com/product/mellody-plant-based-honey
If you eat a kilogram of beef, you’ll cause about an extra 2 days of factory farming. It’s 3 days for pork, 14 for turkey, 23 for chicken, and 31 for eggs. In contrast, if you eat a kg of honey, you’ll cause over 200,000 days of bee farming. 97% of years of animal life brought about by industrial farming have been through the honey industry (though this doesn’t take into account other insect farming).
Having these numbers be weight seems less useful than having them by calorie, since not all animal products are equally calorically dense.
(I admit, calories a...
Honey is about 3000 cal per kg, beef 2900, so pretty similar. I'm more concerned that they're not doing typical consumption rates - you could stop eating pork and eat a similar amount of beef instead (or tofu or Beyond, of course), but nobody is replacing a 200g steak with 200g of honey.
I'd imagine the average serving size of honey is 10-30g and a heavy honey consumer eats on the order of 10 servings a week. My dad was a beekeeper growing up and we didn't go through 1kg of (free---he sold it at markets for an overall profit---extremely high quality honey) a week as a family but we went through several kilos of meat.
After an initially harsh reaction to this, upon reflection I realized I do care about bee experience, want bees to be healthy and have a good time, and think the conventional honey industry is quite bad. I've thought this for a while.
I've spent a lot of time around bees and I've eaten lots of honey that I've seen them making. I think in the contexts in which I've interacted with bees, I'd guess it's very unlikely they are having a bad time relative to bees in the wild. I'd guess that if there's any mean valence associated with their experience it's definit...
Exhibiting a pessimism bias (thinking, if they’re been exposed to new positive and negative stimuli at an equal rate, probably the next stimuli will be beneficial).
Is this supposed to be "harmful"? As worded, this sentence is confusing.
I'm very sympathetic to this general case, but the post does raise a bunch of red flags. I've asked Claude to summarize how good the life of the typical bee is, and it presented a far less negative picture. I'm not sure I can trust this article more than that.
Although I don't super like honey, so I might stop eating/eat less anyway.
One reason to think that bee suffering and human suffering are comparably important (within one or two orders of magnitude) is just that suffering is suffering. When you feel pain you don't really feel much else than pain; when it's intense enough you can't really experience much other than the pain, you can't think clearly, you can't do all of the cognitive things that seem to separate us from bees, you just experience suffering in some raw form, and that seems very bad. If we can imagine bee's suffering is something like this, it seems like i...
Do you ever use LLMs? (They have a lot more neurons than bees, and it's unclear why consuming honey is worse than using LLMs.)
Other comments have addressed your comparison of bee to human suffering, so I would like to set it aside and comment on "don't eat honey" as a call to action. I think people who eat honey (except for near-vegans who were already close to giving it up) are not likely to be persuaded to stop. However, similar to meat-eaters who want to reduce animal suffering caused by the meat industry, they can probably be persuaded to buy honey harvested from bees kept in more suitable[1] conditions. For those people, you could advocate for a "free-range" type of informal...
Well argued, and addresses the obvious question "okey but if they're sentient at all it's got to be a tiny amount, right?"
This seems like the crux of disagreement I've had with some of your previous points; sure, pain is bad, but the intensity or "realness" of pain has to be on a spectrum of some sort it seems to me.
It does seem like you've got to make that adjustment to avoid another implausible conclusion, that sentience "switches on" at some point, leaving a spider non-sentient (say) but a beetle fully sentient (or some other narrow dividing line)?
Intel...
Crosspost from my blog.
(I think this is a pretty important article so I’d appreciate you sharing and restacking it—thanks!)
There are lots of people who say of themselves “I’m vegan except for honey.” This is a bit like someone saying “I’m a law-abiding citizen, never violating the law, except sometimes I’ll bring a young boy to the woods and slay him.” These people abstain from all the animal products except honey, even though honey is by far the worst of the commonly eaten animal products.
Now, this claim sounds outrageous. Why do I think it’s worse to eat honey than beef, eggs, chicken, dairy, and even foie gras? Don’t I know about the months-long torture process needed to fatten up ducks sold for foie gras? Don’t I know about the fact that they grind up baby male chicks in the egg industry and keep the females in tiny cages too small to turn around in? Don’t I know, don’t I know, don’t I know?
Indeed I do. I am no fan of these animal products. I fastidiously avoid eating them. In fact, I think that factory farming is a horror of unprecedented proportions, a crime, a tragedy, an embarrassment, a work of Satan himself that induces both cruelty and wickedness in those involved and perpetrates suffering on a scale so vast it can scarcely be fathomed. I can be accused of many things, but being a fan of most animal products is not one of them.
But I assure you, honey is worse (at least in expectation).
If you eat a kilogram of beef, you’ll cause about an extra 2 days of factory farming. It’s 3 days for pork, 14 for turkey, 23 for chicken, and 31 for eggs. In contrast, if you eat a kg of honey, you’ll cause over 200,000 days of bee farming. Of all the farming years brought about by the honey, chicken, cow, sheep, turkey, duck, pig, and goat farming industries, 97% have been brought about by honey.
If honey is bad, therefore, it is likely to be very bad! If we assume a day of bee life is only .1% as bad in absolute terms as a day of chicken life, honey is still many times worse than eating chicken (at least, if you eat similar amounts). As we’ll see, taking into account serious estimates of suffering caused makes honey seem many times worse than all other animal products, so that your occasional honey consumption could very well be worse than all the rest of your consumption of animal products combined.
Let’s first establish that bees in the honey industry do not live good lives. First of all, their lives are very short. They live just a few weeks. They die painfully. So even putting aside grievous industry abuse, their lives aren’t likely to be great. Predation, starvation, succumbing to disease, and wear and tear are all common.
Second of all, the honey industry treats bees unimaginably terribly (most of the points I make here are drawn from the Rethink Priorities essay I just linked). They’re mostly kept in artificial structures, that are routinely inspected in ways that are very stressful for the bees, who feel like the hive is under attack. Often, the bees sting themselves to death. In order to prevent this, the industry uses a process called smoking—lighting a fire, sending smoke into the hives, to prevent alarm pheromones from being detected and the bees from being (beeing) sent into a frenzy. Sometimes, however, smoking melts the wings of the bees. Reassembly of the hive after inspections often crushes bees to death.
These structures, called Langstroth hives, also have poor thermal insulation, increasing the risk of bees freezing to death or overheating. About 30% of hives die off during the winter, meaning this probably kills about 8 billion bees in the U.S. alone every single year. The industry also keeps the bees crammed together, leading to infestations of harmful parasites.
Oftentimes, beekeepers take too much honey and leave all of the bees to starve to death. This is a frequent cause of the mass bee die-offs that, remember, cause about a third of bee colonies not to survive the winter. Because beekeepers take honey, the bees main source of food, bees are left chronically malnourished, leading to higher risk of death, weakness, and disease. Bees in the commercial honey industry generally lack the ability to forage, which exacerbates nutrition problems.
Bees also undergo unpleasant transport conditions. More than half of bee colonies are transported at some point. Tragically, “bees from migratory colonies have a shorter lifespan and higher levels of oxidative stress than workers at stationary apiaries.” The transport process is very stressful for bees, just as it is for other animals. It also weirdly leads to bees having underdeveloped food glands, perhaps due to vibration from transport. Transport often is poorly ventilated, leading to bees overheating or freezing to death. Also, transport brings bees from many different colonies together, leading to rapid spread of disease.
Honey bees are often afflicted by parasites, poisoned with pesticides, and killed in other ways. Queen bees are routinely killed years before they’d die naturally, have their wings clipped, and are stressfully and invasively artificially inseminated. This selective breeding leaves bees more efficient commercially but with lower welfare levels than they’d otherwise have. Often bees are killed intentionally in the winter because it’s cheaper than keeping them around—by diesel, petrol, cyanide, freezing, drowning, and suffocation.
So, um, not great!
In short, bees are kept in unpleasant, artificial conditions, where a third of the hives die off during the winter from poor insulation—often being baked alive or freezing to death. They’re overworked and left chronically malnourished, all while riddled with parasites and subject to invasive and stressful inspections. And given the profound extent to which the honey industry brings invasive disease to wild bees and crowds out other pollinators, the net environmental impact is relatively unclear. The standard notion that honey should be eaten to preserve bees is a vast oversimplification.
Thus, if you eat even moderate amounts of honey, you cause extremely large numbers of bees to experience extremely unpleasant fates for extremely long times. If bees matter even negligibly, this is very bad!
Indeed, bees seem to matter a surprising amount. They are far more cognitively sophisticated than most other insects, having about a million neurons—far more than our current president. Bees make complex tradeoffs between pain and reward, display pessimism, show recognition of their bodies, make transitive inference (which some philosophers don’t do), and dream. Rethink Priorities notes bees have been shown to display every behavioral proxy of consciousness, including:
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life, and then downweight it by the relative intensity of their suffering, then consuming a kg of honey is over 500 times worse than consuming a kg of chicken! And these estimates were fairly conservative. I think it’s more plausible that eating honey is thousands of times worse than eating comparable amounts of chicken, which is itself over a dozen times worse than eating comparable amounts of beef. If we assume very very very conservatively that a day of honey bee life is as unpleasant as a day spent attending a boring lecture, and then multiply by .15 to take into account the fact bees are probably less sentient than people, eating a kg of honey causes about as much suffering as forcing a person to attend boring lectures continuously for 30,000 days. That’s about an entire lifetime of a human, spent entirely on drudgery. That’s like being forced to read an entire Curtis Yarvin article from start to finish. And that is wildly conservative.
I feel I’ve already repeated my shtick often enough about the badness of pain being because of how it feels, so I won’t repeat it in detail. Headaches are bad because they hurt, not (entirely at least) because the people having them are smart. Causing staggeringly, mind-blowingly large quantities of animal pain is bad because pain is bad. Unpleasant experiences are unpleasant. And while in practice we don’t take seriously bee interests, they’re complex, likely able to suffer, and surprisingly intelligent. It’s not okay to mass starve and roast such creatures just because they’re small. If you wouldn’t be fine doing such things to larger creatures with similar behavior, you shouldn’t be fine doing them to bees.
So don’t eat honey! If you eat honey, you are causing staggeringly large amounts of very intense suffering. Eating honey is many times worse than eating other animal products, which are themselves bad enough. If you want to make an easy change to your diet to prevent a lot of the suffering that you cause, please, for the love of God, avoid honey.
(You wouldn’t hurt this little guy, would you?)