The only strong argument against vegetarianism

Most thoughtful people I’ve debated vegetarianism with eventually come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing to do. Or they accept the weaker claim that it would be a good thing if they ate less meat. Some people don’t accept either of these things, but that’s usually because they don’t want to think about the issue very much.

I recently thought of one argument against vegetarianism that I haven’t been able to convincingly refute, and which I haven’t seen brought up too often, so I thought I’d write about it here in case anyone else had any thoughts.

To recap the pro vegetarianism case: the reason we care about other humans is that they are sentient and feel pleasure/pain. This same reason applies to animals: like humans, they feel pleasure and pain. The fact that animals are less intelligent than humans does not mean we should assign them zero weight in our utility calculations. Eating animals gives us some utility, but for the animal, the utility of living more is higher than the utility we would get out of eating it. (To put it another way, your desire to eat an animal isn’t a good enough reason to kill it.) Therefore, eating animals is bad and we shouldn’t do it.

Most arguments against vegetarianism aren’t very good. You either have to deny that animals have utility (which clearly violates our moral intuitions), or give a good reason why intelligence makes lives more valuable (difficult, and implies that e.g. killing people with low IQs might be OK), or else just bite the bullet and because a ‘speciesist’ i.e. argue that humans’ needs/wants are more important. This violates the basic principle of impartiality.

So what’s the strong argument? Well, it’s a version of ‘The Repugnant Conclusion’, an argument made by the philosopher Derek Parfit in a different context (population ethics). It goes like this:

Suppose that we have a population ‘A’. ‘A’ has few members, but they’re very happy and live in luxury. Now imagine A has the option to add some people to their population, but their quality is life will be slightly less good. They should take this option, because the value of the additional lives is enormous (existing is better than not existing) and the value of the luxuries A has to give up is tiny by comparison. So population A grows bigger.

Now keep repeating this procedure; each time, there is *some* number of additional people you can add to the population, such that whatever the loss in quality of life, it’s still worth adding that number of people to the population, because the total amount of utility in the world increases. The diagram shows the two scenarios:

So that’s the Repugnant Conclusion: no matter how bad life gets for each individual person, it’s always worth adding more people, even if in the end everyone is living a miserable life and barely subsisting.

How does this apply to vegetarianism? Pretty simple: yes, killing animals to eat them isn’t a tasteful practice. But animals do get some utility out of living. So if we bring into a being a cow that otherwise wouldn’t have been alive, let it live for X years, and then mercifully kill it while it’s sleeping and eat it, that is still better than if the cow hadn’t lived at all: it’s had a happy life, and we had a nice meal after it died as well!

On strict utilitarian terms, this seems hard to argue against. You could argue that the animal’s life is so bad that it’s better for it not to have existed at all: this seems plausible for e.g. chickens raised in factory farms. But ‘The Repugnant Conclusion’ still applies as long as the overall utility-value of the animal’s life was positive. This would imply that e.g. eating ethically-raised meat is perfectly OK.

I haven’t been able to come up to a good response to this that relies solely on utilitarian assumptions; you’d have to resort to the idea that killing is *intrinsically* bad somehow, or other ‘deontological’ (i.e. principles-based, rather than consequences-based) arguments such as the Buddhist exhortation to respect all sentient beings.

Does anybody know a good response?


The student Doko came to a Zen master, and said: “I am seeking the truth. In what state of mind should I train myself, so as to find it?”

Said the master, “There is no mind, so you cannot put it in any state. There is no truth, so you cannot train yourself for it.”

“If there is no mind to train, and no truth to find, why do you have these monks gather before you every day to study Zen and train themselves for this study?”

“But I haven’t an inch of room here,” said the master, “so how could the monks gather? I have no tongue, so how could I call them together or teach them?”

“Oh, how can you lie like this?” asked Doko.

“But if I have no tongue to talk to others how can I lie to you?” asked the master.

Then Doko said sadly, “I cannot follow you. I cannot understand you.”

“I cannot understand myself,” said the master.

The Poems Of Our Climate


Clear water in a brilliant bowl,
Pink and white carnations. The light
In the room more like a snowy air,
Reflecting snow. A newly-fallen snow
At the end of winter when afternoons return.
Pink and white carnations – one desires
So much more than that. The day itself
Is simplified: a bowl of white,
Cold, a cold porcelain, low and round,
With nothing more than the carnations there.


Say even that this complete simplicity
Stripped one of all one’s torments, concealed
The evilly compounded, vital I
And made it fresh in a world of white,
A world of clear water, brilliant-edged,
Still one would want more, one would need more,
More than a world of white and snowy scents.


There would still remain the never-resting mind,
So that one would want to escape, come back
To what had been so long composed.
The imperfect is our paradise.
Note that, in this bitterness, delight,
Since the imperfect is so hot in us,
Lies in flawed words and stubborn sounds.

— Wallace Stevens (1942)

Rent Control Is A Terrible Idea

Rent controls sound great. It’s simple – the cost of renting in London is way too high. We can’t build enough houses to keep up with demand. The poor and young are being squeezed in a terrible housing market run by greedy landlords. Solution: legislate to ban high rents, so that the poor and young can afford housing. Problem solved.

This argument fails for the same reason all price controls fail. They usually have the opposite effect to the one intended, and end up hurting the people (the poor and the young) whom they’re meant to help. To see this, consider a recent example in the Israeli book market (quotes from here):

A new Israeli law controlling the price of books and mandating guaranteed minimum compensation for writers has had the complete opposite effect of what lawmakers had intended, with book sales now in a free fall just one year after the law went into effect.

It’s called “The Law for Protecting Literature and Books,” but the impact on the industry has been so devastating that the head of a prominent book publisher has taken to calling the new mandate, “The Law for Hurting Literature and Books.”

The law banned the discounting of books over 18 months old, and mandated that a certain %age of the fee goes to the authors. All sounds great – authors don’t get paid enough, let’s legislate the price of books and make sure they do. But the effect it had was catastrophic:

The left-wing Israel newspaper Haaretz, which usually writes in favor of “social justice” issues, conceded that the law “has had the opposite effect its backer promised it would bring.”

Publishers told Haaretz that the law “has upset the entire literary food chain” with sales of new book titles down between 40 and 60 percent and down 20 percent for books overall.

So a law intended to benefit authors by raising the price of books… ended up harming authors terribly, by reducing their sales. Oops. Of course, the legislators who introduced this had the best of intentions:

Israeli lawmaker Nitzan Horowitz of the socialist-leaning Meretz party, who introduced the legislation, told Israel’s Army Radio last year that “we passed this law because of a market failure” and that the aim was “to ensure that consumers, readers receive good, high-quality books and that their authors will receive appropriate compensation.”

Rent controls would have the exact same effects. The core problem London faces is that demand for housing is booming, but we can’t build new houses/flats fast enough to keep up. (Excellent summary in this BuzzFeed, and this Shelter report contains more detail). Legislating the price of renting would have the following effects:

  • Restricts the supply of rental housing. Landlords have a greater incentive to turn land into offices or sell it, as opposed to renting it.
  • Those that do get the precious rent-controlled apartments will stay there for longer; the poor & young who are entering the property market will be even more screwed finding an apartment, because the non-rent-controlled rents will have gotten higher.

Rent control has been tried in multiple US cities. Google to see the results. Anecdotally speaking – both New York and San Francisco have had rent controls for ages, and anyone who lives there, or has tried to live there, will tell you how utterly insane the rental market there is. So if we want London to be more like NYC and SF, we should support rent controls. QED.

Apparently 59% of the public support rent controls. Which is bad, because if enacted, they will end up making everything worse.


There are stories that contain the essence of a person’s character. This one – about Julius Caesar, who conquered most of the then-known world – is from Plutarch’s Lives. It takes place early in Caesar’s life, before anybody knows who he is. He is in exile from Rome. A minor player, at best.

At sea, he is captured by pirates, who demand a ransom:

To begin with, then, when the pirates demanded twenty talents for his ransom, he laughed at them for not knowing who their captive was, and of his own accord agreed to give them fifty.

Despite being absolutely in their power, he is completely reckless:

…he held them in such disdain that whenever he lay down to sleep he would send and order them to stop talking. For eight and thirty days, as if the men were not his watchers, but his royal body-guard, he shared in their sports and exercises with great unconcern. He also wrote poems and sundry speeches which he read aloud to them, and those who did not admire these he would call to their faces illiterate Barbarians, and often laughingly threatened to hang them all. The pirates were delighted at this, and attributed his boldness of speech to a certain simplicity and boyish mirth.

Eventually his ransom comes through and he is set free. A normal person, glad to be free, would probably get back to their normal life. Caesar, however, wants revenge:

But after his ransom had come from Miletus and he had paid it and was set free, he immediately manned vessels and put to sea from the harbour of Miletus against the robbers. He caught them, too, still lying at anchor off the island, and got most of them into his power. Their money he made his booty, but the men themselves he lodged in the prison at Pergamum, and then went in person to Junius, the governor of Asia, on the ground that it belonged to him, as praetor of the province, to punish the captives.

But the praetor – basically the mayor – isn’t in a rush to punish them. However, the pirates are captured and in prison, and you’d presume that Caesar, his job done, can go on to do other things. And yet:

But since the praetor cast longing eyes on their money, which was no small sum, and kept saying that he would consider the case of the captives at his leisure, Caesar left him to his own devices, went to Pergamum, took the robbers out of prison, and crucified them all, just as he had often warned them on the island that he would do, when they thought he was joking.

2014 Review of Books

Several people I know have asked me for book recommendations recently. Since I track every book I read, I thought people might find this end-of-year review useful. The format is inspired by the late Aaron Swartz’s series. Following his convention, I’ve *bold starred books that I thought were especially great; **two stars means it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read.

Obvious themes: tech, thrillers, Zen. More novels than I thought I’d read. Surprisingly little philosophy or economics – I suspect I get most of this from the internet rather than books now. Overall I got through less than usual this year, but I’m aiming to get to ~60 over the holidays.

1. How Google Works by Eric Schmidt

Bad. Full of woolly platitudes. Apparently now everybody needs to hire ‘smart creatives’ who adapt fast and can learn new things. This is because the pace of change is increasing in the world. Does this surprise anyone?

2. One Way and Another by Adam Phillips

Essays on psychoanalysis and life. Rambling but inspired. I bought this after reading his Paris Review interview, which is excellent.

3. Ending the Pursuit of Happiness by Barry Magid

I liked this as an intro to Zen and as a great perspective on happiness. Worth reading if you want to be a mentally healthy person, or if you suspect there’s something to the view that talk of ‘achieving happiness’ is somehow misguided.

4. The Interior Realisation by Hubert Benoit

Not as good as #39, which is amazing.

5. Born Standing Up by Steve Martin

Marc Andreessen recommends this book to would-be entrepreneurs. A light read but inspiring – years and years of plugging away at comedy before getting any kind of ‘break’, and the famous quote: “Be so good they can’t ignore you.”

*6. On the Shortness of Life by Seneca

We habitually underestimate the value of time and tend to spend a lot of our life on stuff that doesn’t really matter. Seneca makes this point in a particularly brilliant and vivid way. It’s really short, too.

7. Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

I really liked this one. Great thriller. Not revealing any spoilers (there is a shocker of a twist). I thought the ending was pretty silly and psychologically unrealistic.

8. The Constant Gardener by John le Carre

Good thriller & typically well-plotted le Carre novel with a moral centre. I find reading le Carre novels oddly peaceful and immersive.

9. Zero to One by Peter Thiel

Worth reading if you work in tech. Like the Blake Masters lectures online but with maybe 20% additional content. I particularly liked the analysis of Tesla at the end.

10. Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes

Surprisingly brilliant. Surfaced a lot of latent feelings/thoughts I had about photography. You have to make allowances for the style (continental philosopher, somewhat pretentious) but it was very good and in parts moving. (It was written after the death of his mother).

11. Colourless Tsukuru Tazaki by Haruki Murakami

Solid Murakami. Nothing spectacular, but a good novel nonetheless. One or two profound passages.

*12. Summertime by J. M. Coetzee

Brilliant novel. Really odd – the idea is that a biographer interviews five people about a man called ‘John Coetzee’ (the name of the author) – the book is a transcript of these interviews. Each person has their own perspective on John, and a hilarious and very realistic voice. They are describing recognisably the same man, and there’s something incredible about how much self-awareness and ability to imagine yourself into other peoples’ souls it takes to write this kind of book.

*13. Where I’m Calling From: Stories by Raymond Carver

One of my favourite short story writers. If you haven’t read him, try ‘Cathedral’ and ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Love’.

14. Stoner, John Williams

A novel about a university professor, from birth to death. One of the most depressing books I’ve ever read. Not good enough to make it worthwhile.

15. Artful, Ali Smith

*16. On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche

I read this after Glenn Greenwald said it was his favourite book. If you get past the semi-historical narratives Nietzsche tells, the concepts are brilliant and disturbing. I’ve never read anyone who can stimulate my own thoughts so much.

17. Call for the Dead by John Le Carre

Solid spy novel. A little archaic.

*18. The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt

One of the best novels I read this year. It’s going to endure. One of those big, epic novels that draws you into its world. Describes being a young boy, falling in love, and losing one’s mother scarily well.

19. What I Talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami

Only worth reading if you’re at the intersection of ‘Murakami fan’ and ‘runner’.

20. A Delicate Truth by John Le Carre

Above-average Le Carre. More recent. Good read if you want a first spy novel.

21. Only the Paranoid Survive by Andy Grove

Pretty excellent memoir. Particularly insightful on how to stay alive as a technology company and has great specific tips on spotting the right kind of large-scale strategic decision. Grove is one of tech’s greatest ever CEO’s (“During his tenure as CEO, Grove oversaw a 4,500% increase in Intel’s market capitalization from $4 billion to $197 billion, making it the world’s 7th largest company, with 64,000 employees.” – Wikipedia) so this is how I know he isn’t bullshitting. I would go back to this if I became the CEO of a large tech company, but since I’m not in that position, I haven’t starred this one.

**22. More Than Anyone Can Do: Zen Talks by Ton Lathouwers

Nine talks given at a Zen retreat, all extremely profound. I would read this if you’re interested in Zen and/or have any kind of interest in religion.

23. Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke

Good read if you’re an artist/writer or have aspirations in that direction.

24. Collected Stories by Raymond Carver

25. No Place To Hide by Glenn Greenwald

I read everything Greenwald writes and consider him one of the most important journalists of our time. This book is the story of the Snowden leaks from the journalist who broke them as well as an eloquent argument for why citizens should care about being in an era of mass surveillance. Even if you don’t agree with him, it’s useful to get the perspective.

**26. The Nature of Order Book 1: The Phenomenon of Life by Christopher Alexander
**27. The Nature of Order Book 4: The Luminous Ground by Christopher Alexander

A theory of beauty and aesthetics. Programmers may be familiar with Alexander from ‘A Pattern Language’, which helped develop the concept of design patterns in software. The books are stunning physical objects (I don’t normally buy books for this reason, but I was stunned at everything from the type to the photos) and they had a huge impact on me. I would read the Wikipedia page and if it sounds interesting, just order them and take a look.

28. I’m Feeling Lucky by Douglas Edwards

*29. Masters of Doom by David Kushner

Excellent biography of Carmack & Romero and id Software. I got this from Jeff Atwood’s article. Worth reading just for the descriptions of Carmack’s brilliance alone. And quotes like this: “In the information age, the barriers just aren’t there,” [Carmack] said. “The barriers are self-imposed. If you want to set off and go develop some grand new thing, you don’t need millions of dollars of capitalization. You need enough pizza and Diet Coke to stick in your refrigerator, a cheap PC to work on, and the dedication to go through with it. We slept on floors. We waded across rivers.”

30. The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz

I didn’t love this – it felt too specific to Ben’s situation, and the more general advice was largely a duplicate of what’s on his blog already. So if you’ve read his blog, I wouldn’t strongly recommend this.

**31. A Death In The Family by Karl Ove Knausgaard
**32. A Man in Love by Karl Ove Knausgaard

Fairly sure these will sit alongside Proust & Tolstoy as some of the greatest novels ever written. Sold half a million copies in Norway, a country of 6 million people, and supposedly was banned from discussion at workplaces because people were talking about it too much. A good article is here for background but basically, if you’re into novels, I would read these.

33. Essays in Idleness by Kenko

*34. The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest by Stieg Larsson
*35. The Girl Who Played With Fire by Stieg Larsson
*36. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

Surprisingly brilliant thrillers with a feminist theme. I read all three on a single flight and could not stop reading the whole way through, but these novels also stuck with me in a way that most thrillers don’t.

37. Letters to a Young Novelist by Federico Garcia Lorca

38. Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

Classic, excellent thriller, and great read if you’re not into the genre but want an intelligent page-turner.

**39. Zen and the Psychology of Transformation by Hubert Benoit

Dense but extremely profound, one of the wisest books I’ve read. Benoit was a psychotherapist who became fully paralysed after being injured in WWII and spent several years lying still in bed trying to figure out the nature of life. This book is what he came up with. It’s like Zen explained why a Western philosopher. This book is only worth undertaking if you (a) have an interest in Zen already and (b) have a tolerance for dense, academic prose. I think it’s worth it.

40. The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts

Nice introduction to Zen. Immensely readable like all Alan Watts.

41. Delivering Happiness by Tony Hsieh

Pretty good memoir and contains some great stories. Maybe I read too much tech press, but a little sick of hearing about how great Zappos’s company culture was. It sounds cultish and creepy to me (how enthusiastic could somebody get about selling shoes before you wonder if they’re deluding themselves? Maybe that’s just me). Still, Hsieh is an extraordinary entrepreneur and clearly super-intelligent, so this is a good read.

42. Dance Dance Dance by Haruki Murakami


43. After Dark by Haruki Murakami

Good, short read. I liked this and found it memorable.

*44. High Output Management by Andy Grove

The best book on management I’ve read. (Though there are surprisingly few good ones, given how important a subject this is).

*45. Predictable Revenue by Aaron Ross

If you’re in SaaS (particularly as a founder or sales manager), you must read this. It’s the most actionable book on either of those subjects I’ve read.

*46. The Power Broker by Robert Moses [in progress]

Already one of the best non-fiction books I’ve read. I recommend reading Aaron Swartz on this as it was one of his favourite books.

47. Nothing is Hidden by Barry Magid [in progress]

48. In the Light of What We Know by Zia Haider Rahman [in progress]

Overrated and a little wordy so far. Still, I’m reading it and intrigued to know what happens, so he’s doing something right.

49. Player of Games, Iain Banks [in progress]

50. Permutation City, Greg Egan [in progress]

51. Debt: The First 5,000 Years, David Graeber [in progress]


NB. I wrote this to be provocative; I don’t think the argument is watertight, as evidenced by the fact that I haven’t actually signed up for cryonics.

Cryonics means freezing someone when they die, so they can be revived with better medical technology in the future.

Another way of saying this is that cryonicists disagree with the legal definition of death. Someone is not dead when their heart has stopped beating, for example. Rather, they are dead when it is impossible – even in principle – to revive someone in their current form. This is known as the ‘information-theoretic criterion of death‘.1 You cannot rearrange a pile of bones into the person they once were, but you can, in principle, revive someone whose heart stopped beating two minutes ago.

Cryonics seems like an obviously good bet. If you don’t sign up to it, you are certainly dead, whether or not cryonics works. If you sign up for cryonics, there are two possibilities: either cryonics doesn’t work, in which case you die, but that would’ve happened if you didn’t sign up to it anyway. Or cryonics does work, then you live. So the only way you could live beyond your natural lifespan is if you sign up to cryonics: by not signing up for it, you are guaranteed permanent death. If you value life, the only rational course of action, therefore, is to sign up to cryonics.

If the above is correct, it is rational to not sign up for cryonics only if:

  1. You believe that P = 0, i.e. cryonics will never work;
  2. You prefer being dead to being alive.

Cryonics will probably work

Freezing biological matter to preserve it (so that when rewarmed, it functions again) has worked already, in smaller cases. It has worked with a rabbit kidney2, which was frozen, rewarmed, transplanted into a new rabbit and functioned normally. It has also worked with, according to Ralph Merkle, “very early human embryos, sperm, skin, bone, red and white blood cells, bone marrow, and others”. There are also well-known cases where people who have been dead for a long period of time were revived, e.g. because they fell into a frozen lake.3 This implies that cryonic freezing has a prima facie chance of working.

Nonetheless, if you talk to the average person – even doctors – about cryonics, they are sceptical. The most common reason for doctors to be sceptical is that cryonics hasn’t been validated using clinical trials, and doctors are, rightly, sceptical of things that haven’t been validated in that way. But cryonics requires a longer time horizon than most clinical trials. We won’t know whether it works for at least 50 years.

We are faced with a bet: will medical technologies in the future will become advanced enough to repair damage to human bodies that we don’t currently know how to deal with? And will cryopreservation keep us in a treatable state until then?

I don’t know of an exact value for P, the probability that cryonics works, but we can confidently state that it’s non-zero. Highly intelligent people are choosing to be cryonically preserved, freezing seems prima facie a good way to preserve people, and medical technology is advancing fast at an accelerating rate.

We should value life

Preferring death to life seems absurd, but it is the source of most people’s distaste for cryonics. People say things like:

  • Death is part of the natural order. It’s a good thing. We shouldn’t fight it.4
  • Life wouldn’t be beautiful if we lived forever. Death makes things beautiful.
  • Living forever would suck: you’d get old, and demented, and weak, but have to go on living in this miserable state.

The third point seems like the most reasonable one. It’d be no fun to be alive and decrepit, because you couldn’t enjoy anything. I’m not worried about this, though: if medical science becomes advanced enough to revive frozen humans, it’s likely good enough to reverse the bad effects of aging too. And if it isn’t, we should remain frozen until it is.

More generally, I find the pro-death arguments baffling. If people really believed that death was good, they wouldn’t cry at funerals, or be sad when their friends died. Nobody wants their family and friends to die. All the cliches about death making life beautiful are just advanced rationalisations for something that’s awful, and bad, and should be stopped.

Paying for a cryonic insurance policy seems like a sane thing to do. It may seem a little crazy, but so did flying across continents in a giant metal container once.

Further reading

Merkle on cryonics

LessWrong’s cryonics wiki

Robin Hanson on cryonics

What is your life worth?’, John Broome


  1. “A person is dead according to the information-theoretic criterion if their memories, personality, hopes, dreams, etc. have been destroyed in the information-theoretic sense. That is, if the structures in the brain that encode memory and personality have been so disrupted that it is no longer possible in principle to restore them to an appropriate functional state, then the person is dead. If the structures that encode memory and personality are sufficiently intact that inference of the memory and personality are feasible in principle, and therefore restoration to an appropriate functional state is likewise feasible in principle, then the person is not dead.” – Ralph Merkle, from here
  2. ” We report here the detailed case history of a rabbit kidney that survived vitrification and subsequent transplantation, a case that demonstrates both the fundamental feasibility of complex system vitrification and the obstacles that must still be overcome, of which the chief one in the case of the kidney is adequate distribution of cryoprotectant to the renal medulla.”
  3. Example 1. Example 2.
  4. Steve Jobs: “Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.” (from here.) Jobs was a brilliant man, but he also believed that a fruit-only diet would get rid of his cancer, so we shouldn’t believe everything he said.


One hack taught to actors and politicians is to say lines while keeping their head perfectly still. It makes them seem more impressive.

This trick works because of status. Status is an invaluable concept for talking about human interaction. A book about acting and improvisation (Impro by Keith Johnstone) convinced me of this.

If you divide a group of people in a room into As and Bs, get them to talk in pairs, and ask the As to blink as little as possible and ask the Bs to blink much more frequently, something funny happens: the As begin to speak much slower, tend to stand straighter, and so on, whereas the Bs constrict their posture, look distinctly uncomfortable, tend to point their toes inward. In short, the ‘A’s are playing high status and ‘B’s are playing low.

In this sense, ‘status’ describes a set of behaviours. So a servant could play higher status than a king. (“Your Highness, that was rather stupid of you.” “But Jeeves, I thought it would make him go away!” “Nonsense, your Majesty…” etc.) High status behaviours include: blinking less frequently, speaking with a fixed rather than a moving head, open postures, pointing toes outwards rather than inwards, resonant voice, straight spine, slower movements, smiling baring both sets of teeth rather than just the top, qualifying one’s sentences less often, and many more. Try saying Clint Eastwood’s line ‘Feeling lucky, punk?’ while moving your head, then saying it with a perfectly fixed head and unblinking stare. The line doesn’t work unless you behave a certain way.

Status also relates to space. Servants bow, kneel, prostrate themselves, shutting off themselves from the space around them. A common way of humiliating someone is to attack them while refusing to let them ‘switch off’: drill sergeants will yell an inch away from a soldier’s face.

Grabbing the head or touching the face of someone, and not being rebuffed, is a sign of high status. Watch the behaviour of generals before a battle in movies, e.g. Aragorn. They’ll often grab the back of the head, or the neck, of a soldier when bolstering their courage.

You have friendlier feelings towards people who you can safely play status games with, i.e. whose status you can lower, and who can lower yours, without recrimination. Good friends can spend hours which consist of hardly anything except joking insults. Whereas you could know someone for a long time and still behave relatively formally, which means being careful to maintain roughly equal status.

One could see tragedy as the expulsion of the high-status animal out of the pack. It works far better if the lead is high status – notice how many heroes of tragic drama were kings/princes/generals.

Observe people at work and how their physical behaviours change when talking to managers/seniors compared to how they talk to subordinates. When talking to subordinates, people tend to make more eye contact, blink less, make more expansive gestures, talk with more resonant voices. This is reversed when talking to ‘superiors’. You can create tension by playing high status to ‘superiors’, which, if they are insecure, will make them ‘put you in your place’ by displays of domination. To make people like you, play roughly equal status to them.

What you end up realising, after reading Impro, is that no human interaction is without status transactions, even of the most minute sort. A common drama exercise is to have two people doing an exercise where they have to minimize the status difference between themselves. The acting suddenly looks ‘real’: the actors focus on each other, and the command ‘minimize status differences’ captures a whole lot of complex behaviours that the actors can perform without consciously thinking about – because they do it in real life anyway.


One thing I have noticed about interesting people is that they have short, pithy rules for making decisions. The rules are short because they need to be memorable. And yet they often yield the right decision.

I collect such rules here. This is mostly selfish: these rules seem to work, so it pays to remember and apply them. Thus, if I think a heuristic is wrong, it isn’t included here.

It’s also important to note that none of these rules are perfect. For example, you don’t always need to work on stuff that would make your friends say ‘wow’. It’s just a good way of focussing on impact.

I’d love to collect more of these. If you know any good ones, please leave a comment.

The list is here:

Ethics & Animal Rights

“The question is not, Can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?”

– Jeremy Bentham

Imagine growing up in 18th century America. Your family might own slaves, your friends’ families might own slaves, and it would be entirely normal to grow up around slaves. Most people did not worry about the ethics of slavery, until the Abolitionists came along and made it an issue.1

It’s probable that you and I wouldn’t have kicked up a fuss about it. Protesting would have risked social ostracisation.

In the same way that people didn’t think of black people as people until somebody else forced them to look at what was right in front of them, most people didn’t think of animals as worthy of moral consideration until Peter Singer came along and sparked the animal liberation movement in the West. It’s still a minority view. I grew up eating meat; my friends all eat meat; my parents grew up eating meat; and so on. Eating meat is normal.

This will eventually change.

The more you examine it, the more our attitude to animals seems logically inconsistent.2 Most people would be outraged if they were out in the park walking their dog, and some random stranger came up to them and shot the dog dead. But when it’s someone else killing an animal after putting it up in living conditions that amount to torture, we look the other way.

Perhaps, however, you would kill an animal yourself for the sole purpose of eating it. If this is true, I’m still willing to bet that you wouldn’t kill and eat a human. So there must be some important distinction between humans and animals, such that eating animals is OK but eating humans isn’t.

But what is that distinction? It can’t be intelligence, because otherwise eating infant babies would be OK. The obvious answer is that we don’t want to harm things that feel pain, and humans feel pain. But so do animals. If harming one is wrong, then harming the other is wrong too.

‘The circle of empathy’ has widened over time. Society went from only valuing the preferences of certain classes of people, and ignoring the preferences of other classes of people (brown people, black people, gay people etc.), to treating all humans equally. I think eventually we’ll come to realize that animals, too, should be included in that circle. There is no good reason to exclude them.

Further Reading

  • I highly recommend Peter Singer’s work. All of the above is basically an informal statement of his philosophically rigorous case.
  • A great exploration using the medium of short fiction is done by JM Coetzee in his Tanner Lecture ‘The Lives of Animals’.
  • Jonathan Safran Foer explores the broader questions nicely in his book Eating Animals.


  1. A few weeks after writing this, I came across the late Aaron Swartz’s essay, ‘Against Reflective Equilibrium‘, which takes a similar line of argument. It’s a common manuever, so the similarity isn’t that surprising, but it’s still striking.
  2. Amusing example from David Foster Wallace (pdf):

    “It occurs to me that I had bacon yesterday and am even now looking forward to my first corn dog of the fair. I’m standing here wringing my hands over a distressed swine and then I’m going to go pound down a corn dog(…) I can imagine what (the swineherders) think of us, cooing at the swine: we fairgoers don’t have to deal with the business of breeding and feeding our meat; our meat simply materializes at the corn-dog stand, allowing us to separate our healthy appetites from fur and screams and rolling eyes. We tourists get to indulge our tender animal-rights feelings with our tummies full of bacon…”