As Kyle has already said his analysis might imply that human extinction is highly undesirable. For example, if animal welfare is significantly net negative now then human extinction removes our ability to help these animals, and they may just suffer for the rest of time (assuming whatever killed us off didnât also kill off all other sentient life).
But his analysis doesnât say that? He considers two quantities in determining net welfare: human experience, and the experience of animals humans raise for food. Human extinction would bring both of these to zero.
I think maybe youâre thinking his analysis includes wild animal suffering?
Fair point, but I would still disagree his analysis implies that human extinction would be good. He discusses digital sentience and how, on our current trajectory, we may develop digital sentience with negative welfare. An implication isnât necessarily that we should go extinct, but perhaps instead that we should try to alter this trajectory so that we instead create digital sentience that flourishes.
So itâs far too simple to say that his analysis âconcludes that human extinction would be a very good thingâ. It is also inaccurate because, quite literally, he doesnât conclude that.
So I agree with your choice to remove that wording.
But his analysis doesnât say that? He considers two quantities in determining net welfare: human experience, and the experience of animals humans raise for food. Human extinction would bring both of these to zero.
I think maybe youâre thinking his analysis includes wild animal suffering?
Fair point, but I would still disagree his analysis implies that human extinction would be good. He discusses digital sentience and how, on our current trajectory, we may develop digital sentience with negative welfare. An implication isnât necessarily that we should go extinct, but perhaps instead that we should try to alter this trajectory so that we instead create digital sentience that flourishes.
So itâs far too simple to say that his analysis âconcludes that human extinction would be a very good thingâ. It is also inaccurate because, quite literally, he doesnât conclude that.
So I agree with your choice to remove that wording.