I would easily be ok with 10 minutes of excruciating pain for 24 hours of fully healthy life
Would you prefer 10 min of “severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture” (excruciating pain) over losing 24 h of fully healthy life (ignoring the indirect effects if the excruciating pain; it would probably lead to death, and therefore result in a loss of life which is worse than losing 24 h of fully healthy life)?
If we take the conservative 10 minutes per 24 hours that I would accept, that would make me 600 times less pain sensitive than you are. So if I take the very same line of thinking that led you to believe there is a 50% chance of them having a net positive life, I would probably conclude there is a 99% chance of them having net positive lives.
If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure. So my guess for the probability that wild invertebrates have positive/negative would arguably not change.
I am again advocating for other ethical frameworks like preference utilitarianism: They clearly show a preference to live so giving them a home by habitat preservation or rewilding is good while killing them is bad.
Could euthanising pets be good for them, even if it goes against their preferences?
I was contemplating this phrase a lot so I want to give a more nuanced answer to it.
If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure.
At least in humans it’s well known that there are individuals that are quite happy in almost any circumstance while others take their lives despite living a life others would dream of. So when assessing if an animal lives a good life we should not only consider the circumstances but how they experience it. From an evolutionary standpoint for the highly competitive environments insects typically live in it seems more adaptive to be optimistic by default and take risks. The male praying mantis, for example, actively approaches the female despite the risk of being eaten during mating. That kind of behaviour is hard to explain without assuming some form of optimistic bias—the kind of disposition that makes taking extreme risks feel worthwhile. So I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most insects are happier than most humans.
So when assessing if an animal lives a good life we should not only consider the circumstances but how they experience it.
What ultimately matters for me is just the subjetive experience of the animals. I only care about the circumstances because they inform the subjective experiences.
So I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most insects are happier than most humans.
Me neither. However, there are good arguments for wild invertebrates having not only positive, but also negative lives.
They didn’t mention torture in the welfare paper, probably because it is a combination of humiliation/pain/helplessness. For the way they described it, yes I would.
If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure.
I don’t see how that might be. We were already talking about a ratio.
Could euthanising pets be good for them, even if it goes against their preferences?
I don’t think that euthanasia would always go against her preferences. (I’m imagining my mum’s dog here.) Humans definitely use euthanasia when it is available to them, and I certainly would. Also, in the wild she would hardly find herself in a situation where she is slowly decaying. For me the ability to pursue goals as described by Peter Godfrey-Smith is very important. The reason why I would go through 10 minutes of excruciating pain for 24 hours of fully healthy life is because of all the things I could do in that time. Wild animals have the possibility to pursue their goals, farmed animals don’t. And pets as well as humans may lose that ability in the last period of their lives. I guess that’s when our time has come to pass the torch on to the next generation.
They didn’t mention torture in the welfare paper, probably because it is a combination of humiliation/pain/helplessness. For the way they described it, yes I would.
Which paper are you referring to? Are you referring to WFI’s page about pain intensities? Here is how they describe excruciating pain.
Excruciating. All conditions and events associated with extreme levels of Pain that are not normally tolerated even if only for a few seconds. In humans, it would mark the threshold of Pain under which many people choose to take their lives rather than endure the Pain. This is the case, for example, of scalding and severe burning events. Behavioral patterns associated with experiences in this category may include loud screaming, involuntary shaking, extreme muscle tension, or extreme restlessness. Another criterion is the manifestation of behaviors that individuals would strongly refrain from displaying under normal circumstances, as they threaten body integrity (e.g. running into hazardous areas or exposing oneself to sources of danger, such as predators, as a result of Pain or of attempts to alleviate it). The attribution of conditions to this level must therefore be done cautiously. Concealment of Pain is not possible.
Torture is not mentioned above, but my quote above (“severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture”) is from Cynthia Schuck-Paim, WFI’s research director. In any case, if many prefer ending their lives over excruciating pain, it makes sense to assume they would prefer avoiding 10 min of excruciating pain over losing 24 h of fully healthy life?
I don’t think that euthanasia would always go against her preferences. (I’m imagining my mum’s dog here.) Humans definitely use euthanasia when it is available to them, and I certainly would. Also, in the wild she would hardly find herself in a situation where she is slowly decaying.
Imagine a pet is born with some disease that allows them to live a long live, but one which has way more suffering than happiness. Do you think such pet should be euthanised? If yes, do you think its birth should ideally have been avoided in the 1st place? If yes, would you apply the same reasoning to wild animals which experience way more suffering than happiness (I guess some do)?
Yes, exactly the one you linked to. Since you linked it, I assumed it was clear from the context.
if many prefer ending their lives over excruciating pain, it makes sense to assume they would prefer avoiding 10 min of excruciating pain over losing 24 h of fully healthy life?
I’m certain there are people who would trade 24 hours of a healthy life just to avoid a shot of distilled water. On the other hand, some people are addicted to pain, such as those who engage in self-harm like cutting. They might willingly accept 10 minutes of excruciating pain for free. This is why empirical data from those accustomed to suffering would be so valuable. For me, the 10-minute mark is simply the trade-off I would personally accept.
If yes, do you think its birth should ideally have been avoided in the 1st place?
If prevention is possible, that would be the ideal scenario in my view. The natural equivalent would be contraception for wild animal. A practice that holds significant promise. While many people try to help birds by using bird-safe glass, providing nesting boxes, or feeding them during winter, the downside is that an artificially inflated population can negatively impact the birds themselves and the insects they hunt. Contraception could offer a way to provide help while keeping populations balanced.
Imagine a pet is born with some disease that allows them to live a long live, but one which has way more suffering than happiness. Do you think such pet should be euthanised?
Yes, if the condition is severe. That represents a very specific intervention. In the wild, such an animal wouldn’t survive anyway. Furthermore, since most chronic diseases in dogs result from human selection, I’m unsure how this specific logic applies to interventions in the wild.
Another argument for euthanasia is that the animal’s presence will likely be substituted. Either by another pet or by various wild animals. By freeing up ecological resources and space, other individuals can take its place who are likely to experience a much better quality of life. This reasoning translates well to wild animal welfare. If we believe certain species, like bees, live reasonably good lives while others, like Varroa destructor, primarily cause suffering, it makes sense to favor the former over the latter. That’s not the same as “bringing numbers down.”
I guess some do
Do you have any specific species in mind? You mentioned nematodes which is a whole phyllum. Why do you expect them to have “net negative lives.”
The natural equivalent would be contraception for wild animal. A practice that holds significant promise.
I think controlling the fertility of rodents can easily increase or decrease welfare. I believe it may impact soil animals way more than rodents, and I have very little idea about whether it increases or decreases the welfare of soil animals.
While many people try to help birds by using bird-safe glass, providing nesting boxes, or feeding them during winter, the downside is that an artificially inflated population can negatively impact the birds themselves and the insects they hunt.
No. I think I would guess random animals of many species to have negative lives with a probability of around 50 %, including species of nematodes. In addition, I do not expect the uncertainty about whether animals have positive or negative lives to be super correlated across species. So random animals of some species having positive lives would still leave me believing that random animals of some other species could easily have negative lives.
Would you prefer 10 min of “severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture” (excruciating pain) over losing 24 h of fully healthy life (ignoring the indirect effects if the excruciating pain; it would probably lead to death, and therefore result in a loss of life which is worse than losing 24 h of fully healthy life)?
If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure. So my guess for the probability that wild invertebrates have positive/negative would arguably not change.
Could euthanising pets be good for them, even if it goes against their preferences?
I was contemplating this phrase a lot so I want to give a more nuanced answer to it.
If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure.
At least in humans it’s well known that there are individuals that are quite happy in almost any circumstance while others take their lives despite living a life others would dream of. So when assessing if an animal lives a good life we should not only consider the circumstances but how they experience it. From an evolutionary standpoint for the highly competitive environments insects typically live in it seems more adaptive to be optimistic by default and take risks. The male praying mantis, for example, actively approaches the female despite the risk of being eaten during mating. That kind of behaviour is hard to explain without assuming some form of optimistic bias—the kind of disposition that makes taking extreme risks feel worthwhile. So I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most insects are happier than most humans.
What ultimately matters for me is just the subjetive experience of the animals. I only care about the circumstances because they inform the subjective experiences.
Me neither. However, there are good arguments for wild invertebrates having not only positive, but also negative lives.
They didn’t mention torture in the welfare paper, probably because it is a combination of humiliation/pain/helplessness. For the way they described it, yes I would.
I don’t see how that might be. We were already talking about a ratio.
I don’t think that euthanasia would always go against her preferences. (I’m imagining my mum’s dog here.) Humans definitely use euthanasia when it is available to them, and I certainly would. Also, in the wild she would hardly find herself in a situation where she is slowly decaying.
For me the ability to pursue goals as described by Peter Godfrey-Smith is very important. The reason why I would go through 10 minutes of excruciating pain for 24 hours of fully healthy life is because of all the things I could do in that time. Wild animals have the possibility to pursue their goals, farmed animals don’t. And pets as well as humans may lose that ability in the last period of their lives. I guess that’s when our time has come to pass the torch on to the next generation.
Which paper are you referring to? Are you referring to WFI’s page about pain intensities? Here is how they describe excruciating pain.
Torture is not mentioned above, but my quote above (“severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture”) is from Cynthia Schuck-Paim, WFI’s research director. In any case, if many prefer ending their lives over excruciating pain, it makes sense to assume they would prefer avoiding 10 min of excruciating pain over losing 24 h of fully healthy life?
Imagine a pet is born with some disease that allows them to live a long live, but one which has way more suffering than happiness. Do you think such pet should be euthanised? If yes, do you think its birth should ideally have been avoided in the 1st place? If yes, would you apply the same reasoning to wild animals which experience way more suffering than happiness (I guess some do)?
Yes, exactly the one you linked to. Since you linked it, I assumed it was clear from the context.
I’m certain there are people who would trade 24 hours of a healthy life just to avoid a shot of distilled water. On the other hand, some people are addicted to pain, such as those who engage in self-harm like cutting. They might willingly accept 10 minutes of excruciating pain for free. This is why empirical data from those accustomed to suffering would be so valuable. For me, the 10-minute mark is simply the trade-off I would personally accept.
If prevention is possible, that would be the ideal scenario in my view. The natural equivalent would be contraception for wild animal. A practice that holds significant promise. While many people try to help birds by using bird-safe glass, providing nesting boxes, or feeding them during winter, the downside is that an artificially inflated population can negatively impact the birds themselves and the insects they hunt. Contraception could offer a way to provide help while keeping populations balanced.
Yes, if the condition is severe. That represents a very specific intervention. In the wild, such an animal wouldn’t survive anyway. Furthermore, since most chronic diseases in dogs result from human selection, I’m unsure how this specific logic applies to interventions in the wild.
Another argument for euthanasia is that the animal’s presence will likely be substituted. Either by another pet or by various wild animals. By freeing up ecological resources and space, other individuals can take its place who are likely to experience a much better quality of life. This reasoning translates well to wild animal welfare. If we believe certain species, like bees, live reasonably good lives while others, like Varroa destructor, primarily cause suffering, it makes sense to favor the former over the latter. That’s not the same as “bringing numbers down.”
Do you have any specific species in mind? You mentioned nematodes which is a whole phyllum. Why do you expect them to have “net negative lives.”
I asked to confirm because the page is not technically a paper.
I very much agree.
I think controlling the fertility of rodents can easily increase or decrease welfare. I believe it may impact soil animals way more than rodents, and I have very little idea about whether it increases or decreases the welfare of soil animals.
I agree.
No. I think I would guess random animals of many species to have negative lives with a probability of around 50 %, including species of nematodes. In addition, I do not expect the uncertainty about whether animals have positive or negative lives to be super correlated across species. So random animals of some species having positive lives would still leave me believing that random animals of some other species could easily have negative lives.