>>10646502 >the pITFaLL tO this "SAFEty-fIrst" APprOach liEs in The EXTREme rIsk oF mORAl coMPlaCENcy IT breEDs. HunDREdS oF mIlliONs of HUmaN BeingS, And billiONs Of nOn-hUMAn ANimAls, are Not In SUch a forTunaTe pOSItIOn. ON a UnIvERsAlIST uTIlitaRIan EtHiC, Or simpLY a budDhisT-stYle ETHIC oF CoMpasSIOn, WE shoULD SYsteMatiCAlLy apPLY tHE sAMe lEveL of urgENCy To RelievIng theiR suFFeRING as OnE WOULD Be jUsTified In ExErcISInG If oNE weRE ONESelF TOrMENtED BY InTEnsE pain OR SuiciDAL desPaiR. eXTRemE SuFFERiNg Is ThE plighT oF bILLiONs Of senTiENT bEinGs AlivE todAy, wHEthEr in oUR faCToRy-FarMs, IN a DaRWINiaN STate of NaTuRe, oR a DEpRESSeD NEIGhbour. DEspERatE StRAITs manDatE TAKING rISKS oNe wOUlD OThERWISe sHUn.
