While I didn’t karma-vote on the main post, I downvoted this comment because I think the idea of net-negative lives for naturally occurring creatures is not only false but even harmful.
I estimated 6.37 % of people have negative lives in the sense of preferring to not have been born, and I guess there is a higher fraction of wild arthropods with negative lives. What do you think is the probability of a random arthropod having a negative life? If it was around 50 % like mine, would you still consider harmful discussing the possibility of wild arthropods having negative lives?
I assume you’re looking for a rational explanation, but it’s rather based on personal experience. It’s because I think my life with constant chronic pain has more negative experiences than positive ones but I have decided I should keep on living.
I am probably just stating the obvious, but I encourage you to chat with LLMs to brainstorm solutions for your chronic pain (the more context you give, the better). You can also use Elicit to find good studies (you can filter in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and systematic reviews). I am happy to have a look if you are open to sharing more (privately or not).
A negative life is typically defined has one with more suffering than happiness, regardless of whether the person living it wants to keep living or not. Wanting to end one’s life is a much stricter condition than having a negative life. I estimated 6.37 % of people have negative lives in the sense of preferring to not have been born, but only 0.0088 % of people commited suicide in 2021. I assume people who ended their lives had negative lives when they ended, so I estimate only 0.138 % (= 8.8*10^-5/0.0637) of people with negative lives in a given year end their lives that year.
The above suggests the vast majority of people with negative lives do not end their lives. I think this is because commiting suicide is hard, people hope their lives may become positive in the future, and believe that ending their lives would harm others.
In principle—though I can’t say I’ve been consistent about it. I’ve supported ending our family dog’s misery when she was diagnosed with pretty bad cancer, and I still stand behind that decision. On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
On a meta level, and I’m adding this because it’s relevant to your other comment: I think it’s fine to live with such contradictions. Given our brain architecture, I don’t expect human morality to be translatable to a short and clear set of rules.
On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
Would you be against painlessly enthanising a stray dog with a similar condition as your family’s dog? If you would support ending their misery too, why not supporting efforts to decrease the number of wild animals with negative lives?
If I somehow ran into such a dog and decided the effort to take them to an ultrasound etc. was worth it, then probably yes—but I wouldn’t start e.g. actively searching for stray dogs with cancer in order to do that.
No, that’s not what I think. I think it’s rather dangerous and probably morally bad to seek out “negative lives” in order to stop them. And I think we should not be interfering with nature in ways we do not really understand. The whole idea of wild animal welfare seems to me not only unsupported morally but also absurd and probably a bad thing in practice.
While I didn’t karma-vote on the main post, I downvoted this comment because I think the idea of net-negative lives for naturally occurring creatures is not only false but even harmful.
Thanks, Guy. I upvoted your comment.
I estimated 6.37 % of people have negative lives in the sense of preferring to not have been born, and I guess there is a higher fraction of wild arthropods with negative lives. What do you think is the probability of a random arthropod having a negative life? If it was around 50 % like mine, would you still consider harmful discussing the possibility of wild arthropods having negative lives?
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a negative life.
Why do you believe that?
I assume you’re looking for a rational explanation, but it’s rather based on personal experience. It’s because I think my life with constant chronic pain has more negative experiences than positive ones but I have decided I should keep on living.
I am probably just stating the obvious, but I encourage you to chat with LLMs to brainstorm solutions for your chronic pain (the more context you give, the better). You can also use Elicit to find good studies (you can filter in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and systematic reviews). I am happy to have a look if you are open to sharing more (privately or not).
A negative life is typically defined has one with more suffering than happiness, regardless of whether the person living it wants to keep living or not. Wanting to end one’s life is a much stricter condition than having a negative life. I estimated 6.37 % of people have negative lives in the sense of preferring to not have been born, but only 0.0088 % of people commited suicide in 2021. I assume people who ended their lives had negative lives when they ended, so I estimate only 0.138 % (= 8.8*10^-5/0.0637) of people with negative lives in a given year end their lives that year.
The above suggests the vast majority of people with negative lives do not end their lives. I think this is because commiting suicide is hard, people hope their lives may become positive in the future, and believe that ending their lives would harm others.
In principle, or only in practice?
In principle—though I can’t say I’ve been consistent about it. I’ve supported ending our family dog’s misery when she was diagnosed with pretty bad cancer, and I still stand behind that decision. On the other hand I don’t think I would ever apply this to an animal one has had no interaction with.
On a meta level, and I’m adding this because it’s relevant to your other comment: I think it’s fine to live with such contradictions. Given our brain architecture, I don’t expect human morality to be translatable to a short and clear set of rules.
Thanks for sharing, Guy!
Would you be against painlessly enthanising a stray dog with a similar condition as your family’s dog? If you would support ending their misery too, why not supporting efforts to decrease the number of wild animals with negative lives?
If I somehow ran into such a dog and decided the effort to take them to an ultrasound etc. was worth it, then probably yes—but I wouldn’t start e.g. actively searching for stray dogs with cancer in order to do that.
Makes sense. I think that suggests you consider decreasing the number of negative lives good in principle, although not always worth it in practice.
No, that’s not what I think. I think it’s rather dangerous and probably morally bad to seek out “negative lives” in order to stop them. And I think we should not be interfering with nature in ways we do not really understand. The whole idea of wild animal welfare seems to me not only unsupported morally but also absurd and probably a bad thing in practice.