[Question] Why do we choose to add humans but not bugs?

[Ze]

With the following assumptions, if we aim for increasing total utility, why would we still choose to design a future with many humans instead of many many bugs?

• Sentient animals’ well-being matters. (Even with fewer utility.)

• At least one kind of bug is sentient.

• Well-being in animals can be positive.

• It will be possible in the future to create and sustain an artificial environment through a dedicated AI, where bugs will thrive, especially considering that future bugs may be digital beings.

• Humans or similarly complex intelligent beings are immensely more prone to pain than bug-like beings.

[NickLaing]

To keep it really simple from my perspective only

1. Because I don’t aim for total increasing utility. Other things matter besides pleasure and pain.

2. Because I think the probability that bugs feel pain in a meaningful way is so low that it constitutes a pascalls mugging

[Alexander Herwix 🔸]

I love this question and I am looking forward to see what hedonic utilitarians come up with here. This has similar vibes to computronium thought experiments but better. Thanks for pointing this question out to me :)

[Ze]

I’ve just noticed (should have asked LLMs earlier :) this has already been suggested by others as a form of repugnant conclusion problem in totalist views.

For reference, linking Jeff Sebo’s paper below but he is not the only one who talked about it.

https://​​philpapers.org/​​rec/​​SEBTRC