A reason why it is not necessarily true that there is net suffering in nature is the hypothesis that small individuals–as invertebrates–may have less intense sentient experiences. In that scenario, small animals would experience relatively less suffering and more enjoyment than larger ones.
I don’t understand how this follows. Wouldn’t less intense experiences affect both suffering and pleasure equally?
Thanks for commenting. You’re right. All else equal, smaller organisms or those with less intense experiences may have relatively less positive and negative experiences. However, since smaller individuals are typically r-selected, while they can suffer in large numbers, they usually live relatively short lives. Thus, two shifts happen –one of which drives the net balance of suffering up, and the other which drives the net balance of suffering down:
First, as the more organisms in a species fail, the more cases of suffering there are relative to enjoyment.
Second, as the number of organisms which fail increases, based on an evolutionary constrained optimization, the degree each organism suffers may decrease. Evolution may put relatively less weight on suffering since suffering becomes more costly for genes in expectation the more organisms experience it. In the case of r-selected individuals (who are typically smaller), if indeed evolution is optimizing, then their shorter lifespan may serve to attenuate their suffering.
Because these two effects go in opposite directions, as the number of failing organisms rises, total suffering may come to exceed overall enjoyment, or the opposite may occur instead. In other words, while greater intensity of experience would lead to more suffering relative to enjoyment, a higher rate of evolutionary failure relative to success may have a surprisingly ambiguous effect.
For the time being, given this trade-off between number and degree of suffering, it is not possible to conclude whether suffering or enjoyment predominates in nature. Additionally, it should be noted that the question of how evolution produces positive and negative experiences is highly uncertain.
I don’t understand how this follows. Wouldn’t less intense experiences affect both suffering and pleasure equally?
Hi Tobias!
Thanks for commenting. You’re right. All else equal, smaller organisms or those with less intense experiences may have relatively less positive and negative experiences. However, since smaller individuals are typically r-selected, while they can suffer in large numbers, they usually live relatively short lives. Thus, two shifts happen –one of which drives the net balance of suffering up, and the other which drives the net balance of suffering down:
First, as the more organisms in a species fail, the more cases of suffering there are relative to enjoyment.
Second, as the number of organisms which fail increases, based on an evolutionary constrained optimization, the degree each organism suffers may decrease. Evolution may put relatively less weight on suffering since suffering becomes more costly for genes in expectation the more organisms experience it. In the case of r-selected individuals (who are typically smaller), if indeed evolution is optimizing, then their shorter lifespan may serve to attenuate their suffering.
Because these two effects go in opposite directions, as the number of failing organisms rises, total suffering may come to exceed overall enjoyment, or the opposite may occur instead. In other words, while greater intensity of experience would lead to more suffering relative to enjoyment, a higher rate of evolutionary failure relative to success may have a surprisingly ambiguous effect.
For the time being, given this trade-off between number and degree of suffering, it is not possible to conclude whether suffering or enjoyment predominates in nature. Additionally, it should be noted that the question of how evolution produces positive and negative experiences is highly uncertain.