I think, by cross-posting this here, you’re largely preaching to the choir—and I’m no exception. I agree that rewilding is an ethically questionable practice and that we should focus a lot (or most) of our attention on invertebrates. I especially like the argument against viewing conservation as necessary for the future survival of life—this is so common and poorly justified.
That said, I think this post could do a much better job of steelmanning the opposition. The assumption that welfare in nature is net-negative is far from obvious: good arguments to the contrary have been given here. There’s also this article, although I think its assumptions are more questionable. To illustrate, consider:
The most numerous wild animals, which your argument focuses on, might not be sentient at all. The jury is still out.
If they are sentient, they might not be so during that first week of life when they’re most likely to die.
Even if they were, since none of us have lived a week and then died as an insect, we should be careful about assuming what that experience is like: doing things and seeing the world for the first time might be positive experiences (think about how a toddler seems to enjoy many very ordinary things); they might suffer less than humans when dying; but even humans often report numbness or even positive near-death experiences (this is all explained better in the previously linked post).
Even if their deaths are very painful, they’re likely to occur over minutes, whereas there are 168 hours in a week. That this isn’t worth it is non-obvious. While we often say that we wouldn’t trade a painful experience for something good, we normally say that while expecting to keep living. If we knew we would die in a week, we might be willing to endure a few minutes of pain for another week of precious life.
Note, I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t make such judgements. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be quick to make them, especially when we’re talking about whether thousands of other animals should live or not. We should steelman the view that wild animals have good lives.
Another relevant article is this RP report, which argues “Knowing a group of organisms produce many offspring, have high mortality rates, small body size and are short-lived is not sufficient to determine that their lives are a net negative (or positive)”.
Yea, I’m a little surprised (based on the interactions I’ve had with EAs about the topic). Would be nice if more people commented, to see whether it’s real disagreement or just a desire for more rigor.
I think, by cross-posting this here, you’re largely preaching to the choir—and I’m no exception. I agree that rewilding is an ethically questionable practice and that we should focus a lot (or most) of our attention on invertebrates. I especially like the argument against viewing conservation as necessary for the future survival of life—this is so common and poorly justified.
That said, I think this post could do a much better job of steelmanning the opposition. The assumption that welfare in nature is net-negative is far from obvious: good arguments to the contrary have been given here. There’s also this article, although I think its assumptions are more questionable. To illustrate, consider:
The most numerous wild animals, which your argument focuses on, might not be sentient at all. The jury is still out.
If they are sentient, they might not be so during that first week of life when they’re most likely to die.
Even if they were, since none of us have lived a week and then died as an insect, we should be careful about assuming what that experience is like: doing things and seeing the world for the first time might be positive experiences (think about how a toddler seems to enjoy many very ordinary things); they might suffer less than humans when dying; but even humans often report numbness or even positive near-death experiences (this is all explained better in the previously linked post).
Even if their deaths are very painful, they’re likely to occur over minutes, whereas there are 168 hours in a week. That this isn’t worth it is non-obvious. While we often say that we wouldn’t trade a painful experience for something good, we normally say that while expecting to keep living. If we knew we would die in a week, we might be willing to endure a few minutes of pain for another week of precious life.
Note, I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t make such judgements. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be quick to make them, especially when we’re talking about whether thousands of other animals should live or not. We should steelman the view that wild animals have good lives.
Another relevant article is this RP report, which argues “Knowing a group of organisms produce many offspring, have high mortality rates, small body size and are short-lived is not sufficient to determine that their lives are a net negative (or positive)”.
Amazing comment appreciate this a lot. I think though its not quite “preaching to the choir” though given the karma hit the post has taken...
Yea, I’m a little surprised (based on the interactions I’ve had with EAs about the topic). Would be nice if more people commented, to see whether it’s real disagreement or just a desire for more rigor.