I acknowledge the examples I gave were kind of bad. If the probability of sentience here really is 6.8%, then that is significant. It’s prompted me to look into that evidence and it is truly more than I thought. So that’s an update.
I still think, even if they do deserve consideration, there’s an argument to be made for delaying that consideration. The argument is of the form “the world isn’t read yet”. I’m very aware that most vegetarians and vegans are also environmentalists. But that’s precisely because they think that environmental protection protects these animals—most have never thought about suffering in nature. My own anecdotal experience is that when I actually talk to such people, and make them aware of the ways that wild animals suffer, then they do tend to be in favor of interventions that would help them, at least if they’re not too environmentally disruptive.
So I feel quite confident that the pro-conservation attitude is an intermediary step. People need to care for animals → then they need to become aware of wild animal suffering → then they will favor intervention in nature.
If you only focus on the short term, taking such attitudes as fixed, then you can never hope to help very many of these animals.
So I feel quite confident that the pro-conservation attitude is an intermediary step. People need to care for animals → then they need to become aware of wild animal suffering → then they will favor intervention in nature.
Interventions promoting a pro-conservation attitude, arguably including the animal-rights movement, may be harmful even if that attitude is a necessary step to care about wild animals. If such interventions make a lot people care about preserving wilderness, but make only a few care about the welfare of wild animals to the extent of being willing to intervene in nature, they may still harm wild animals if these have negative lives.
If you only focus on the short term, taking such attitudes as fixed, then you can never hope to help very many of these animals.
I think one can help lots of soil animals without people caring about these. I estimate buying beef, and donating to GiveWell’s top charities decreases the living time of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 89.3 M and 237 M animal-years per $, which is good for my best guess that they have negative lives.
Thanks, again, for the response.
I acknowledge the examples I gave were kind of bad. If the probability of sentience here really is 6.8%, then that is significant. It’s prompted me to look into that evidence and it is truly more than I thought. So that’s an update.
I still think, even if they do deserve consideration, there’s an argument to be made for delaying that consideration. The argument is of the form “the world isn’t read yet”. I’m very aware that most vegetarians and vegans are also environmentalists. But that’s precisely because they think that environmental protection protects these animals—most have never thought about suffering in nature. My own anecdotal experience is that when I actually talk to such people, and make them aware of the ways that wild animals suffer, then they do tend to be in favor of interventions that would help them, at least if they’re not too environmentally disruptive.
So I feel quite confident that the pro-conservation attitude is an intermediary step. People need to care for animals → then they need to become aware of wild animal suffering → then they will favor intervention in nature.
If you only focus on the short term, taking such attitudes as fixed, then you can never hope to help very many of these animals.
Interventions promoting a pro-conservation attitude, arguably including the animal-rights movement, may be harmful even if that attitude is a necessary step to care about wild animals. If such interventions make a lot people care about preserving wilderness, but make only a few care about the welfare of wild animals to the extent of being willing to intervene in nature, they may still harm wild animals if these have negative lives.
I think one can help lots of soil animals without people caring about these. I estimate buying beef, and donating to GiveWell’s top charities decreases the living time of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 89.3 M and 237 M animal-years per $, which is good for my best guess that they have negative lives.