“Subjecting countless animals to a lifetime of suffering” probably describe the life of the average bird in the amazon (struggling to find food, shelter, avoid predators, protect its children) or the average fish/shrimp in the ocean.
If you argue that introducing animals to other planets will cause net suffering then it seems to follow that we should eliminate natural ecosystems here on earth
If you argue that introducing animals to other planets will cause net suffering then it seems to follow that we should eliminate natural ecosystems here on earth
Do you intend this as an endorsement, a reductio ad absurdum, or a neutral statement?
I personally strongly suspect that many (most?) wild animals alive on Earth today live lives of net suffering. Even so, there are a bunch of reasons not to try to “eliminate natural ecosystems” right now, including instrumental reliance on those ecosystems, avoidance of drastic & irreversible action before we understand the consequences & alternatives, and respect for non-utilitarian side constraints (most compellingly for me, respect for the personhood/rights of existing animals). None of these really apply to terraforming.
As an intuition pump, I personally strongly suspect that there are many people alive on Earth today living lives of net suffering, but it would obviously be awful to try to “eliminate” those people, at least for many common interpretations of that word.
I interpreted “ eliminate natural ecosystems” as more like eliminating global poverty in the human analogy. Seems bad to do a mass killing of all animals, and better to just make their lives very good, and give them the ability to mentally develop past mental ages of 3-7.
Seems bad to do a mass killing of all animals, and better to just make their lives very good, and give them the ability to mentally develop past mental ages of 3-7.
Well, that sentence turned sharply midway through.
I’m not sure about the last part. If I wanted to create lots more intelligent beings, genetically engineering a bunch of different species to be sapient seems like a rather labour-intensive route.
I agree that a lot turns on your interpretation of the word “eliminate” in the original comment.
I wouldn’t advocate for engineering species to be sapient (in the sense of having valenced experiences), but for those that already are, it seems sad they don’t have higher ceilings for their mental capabilities. Like having many people condemned to never develop past toddlerhood.
edit: also, this is a long-term goal. Not something I think makes sense to make happen now.
I’m not sure eliminate is the right way to put it. Reducing net primary productivity (NPP) in legally acceptable ways (e.g. converting lawns into gravel) could end up being cost-effective, but eliminate seems too strong here.
Doing NPP reduction in less acceptable ways could make a lot of people angry, which seems bad for advocacy to reduce wild animal suffering. As Brian Tomasik pointed out somewhere, most of expected future wild animal suffering wouldn’t take place on Earth, so getting societal support to prevent terraforming seems more important.
Animals already exist on earth independently of humans. The difference with introducing life on Mars is that humans would take the decision to make the decision and expend the resources to do so.
That would have negative consequences for the people that already exist today and rely on earths biosphere, the same can not be said for these frivolous space colonization ventures
“Subjecting countless animals to a lifetime of suffering” probably describe the life of the average bird in the amazon (struggling to find food, shelter, avoid predators, protect its children) or the average fish/shrimp in the ocean.
If you argue that introducing animals to other planets will cause net suffering then it seems to follow that we should eliminate natural ecosystems here on earth
Do you intend this as an endorsement, a reductio ad absurdum, or a neutral statement?
I personally strongly suspect that many (most?) wild animals alive on Earth today live lives of net suffering. Even so, there are a bunch of reasons not to try to “eliminate natural ecosystems” right now, including instrumental reliance on those ecosystems, avoidance of drastic & irreversible action before we understand the consequences & alternatives, and respect for non-utilitarian side constraints (most compellingly for me, respect for the personhood/rights of existing animals). None of these really apply to terraforming.
As an intuition pump, I personally strongly suspect that there are many people alive on Earth today living lives of net suffering, but it would obviously be awful to try to “eliminate” those people, at least for many common interpretations of that word.
I interpreted “ eliminate natural ecosystems” as more like eliminating global poverty in the human analogy. Seems bad to do a mass killing of all animals, and better to just make their lives very good, and give them the ability to mentally develop past mental ages of 3-7.
Well, that sentence turned sharply midway through.
I’m not sure about the last part. If I wanted to create lots more intelligent beings, genetically engineering a bunch of different species to be sapient seems like a rather labour-intensive route.
I agree that a lot turns on your interpretation of the word “eliminate” in the original comment.
I wouldn’t advocate for engineering species to be sapient (in the sense of having valenced experiences), but for those that already are, it seems sad they don’t have higher ceilings for their mental capabilities. Like having many people condemned to never develop past toddlerhood.
edit: also, this is a long-term goal. Not something I think makes sense to make happen now.
I’m not sure eliminate is the right way to put it. Reducing net primary productivity (NPP) in legally acceptable ways (e.g. converting lawns into gravel) could end up being cost-effective, but eliminate seems too strong here.
Doing NPP reduction in less acceptable ways could make a lot of people angry, which seems bad for advocacy to reduce wild animal suffering. As Brian Tomasik pointed out somewhere, most of expected future wild animal suffering wouldn’t take place on Earth, so getting societal support to prevent terraforming seems more important.
If done immediately, this seems like it’d severely curtail humanity’s potential. But at some point in the future, this seems like a good idea.
Animals already exist on earth independently of humans. The difference with introducing life on Mars is that humans would take the decision to make the decision and expend the resources to do so.
That would have negative consequences for the people that already exist today and rely on earths biosphere, the same can not be said for these frivolous space colonization ventures