Executive summary: This exploratory and strongly argued post contends that most wild animals—particularly insects and fish—live short, painful lives characterized by intense suffering, making their existence net negative; the author rebuts common objections to this view and argues we should morally favor reducing wild animal populations to alleviate this vast, often overlooked suffering.
Key points:
Wild animals, especially R-strategists like insects and fish, mostly live brief, brutal lives—characterized by constant struggle and often dying painfully within days of becoming conscious, which the author argues makes their lives not worth living.
The main argument hinges on the badness of death, which can be extremely painful and outweigh any brief moments of pleasure during life; evolution incentivizes survival but not necessarily welfare.
Behavioral evidence suggests that even simple creatures like fish and insects likely experience intense pain, challenging the assumption that small or “lower” animals suffer less or not at all.
Common objections—like animals’ instinct to avoid death, the brevity of dying, or evolutionary models—fail to undermine the core claim, either because they misunderstand sentience or underappreciate the intensity of suffering.
The author critiques speculative mathematical models and emphasizes empirical behavior as better evidence, concluding that even if we’re uncertain, the sheer scale of possible suffering should make us cautious about expanding wild animal populations.
Rejecting utilitarianism doesn’t dismiss concern, as the argument appeals to a broad ethical intuition: if you wouldn’t want such a life for yourself, you shouldn’t support creating it for others—even unintentionally through ecosystem preservation.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory and strongly argued post contends that most wild animals—particularly insects and fish—live short, painful lives characterized by intense suffering, making their existence net negative; the author rebuts common objections to this view and argues we should morally favor reducing wild animal populations to alleviate this vast, often overlooked suffering.
Key points:
Wild animals, especially R-strategists like insects and fish, mostly live brief, brutal lives—characterized by constant struggle and often dying painfully within days of becoming conscious, which the author argues makes their lives not worth living.
The main argument hinges on the badness of death, which can be extremely painful and outweigh any brief moments of pleasure during life; evolution incentivizes survival but not necessarily welfare.
Behavioral evidence suggests that even simple creatures like fish and insects likely experience intense pain, challenging the assumption that small or “lower” animals suffer less or not at all.
Common objections—like animals’ instinct to avoid death, the brevity of dying, or evolutionary models—fail to undermine the core claim, either because they misunderstand sentience or underappreciate the intensity of suffering.
The author critiques speculative mathematical models and emphasizes empirical behavior as better evidence, concluding that even if we’re uncertain, the sheer scale of possible suffering should make us cautious about expanding wild animal populations.
Rejecting utilitarianism doesn’t dismiss concern, as the argument appeals to a broad ethical intuition: if you wouldn’t want such a life for yourself, you shouldn’t support creating it for others—even unintentionally through ecosystem preservation.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.