Itâs not clear the loss of human life dominates the welfare effects in the short term, depending on how much moral weight you assign to nonhuman animals and how their lives are affected by continued human presence and activity. It seems like human extinction would be good for farmed animals (dominated by chickens, fish and invertebrates), and would have unclear sign for wild animals (although my own best guess is that it would be bad for wild animals).
Of course, if you take a view thatâs totally neutral about moral patients who donât yet exist, then few of the nonhuman animals that would be affected are alive today, and what happens to the rest wouldnât matter in itself.
Itâs not clear the loss of human life dominates the welfare effects in the short term, depending on how much moral weight you assign to nonhuman animals and how their lives are affected by continued human presence and activity. It seems like human extinction would be good for farmed animals (dominated by chickens, fish and invertebrates), and would have unclear sign for wild animals (although my own best guess is that it would be bad for wild animals).
Of course, if you take a view thatâs totally neutral about moral patients who donât yet exist, then few of the nonhuman animals that would be affected are alive today, and what happens to the rest wouldnât matter in itself.