If wild animals have bad lives on net, then indiscriminately increasing wild animal populations is bad under any plausible theory of population ethics.
Obviously. But then, first, Effective Environmentalists are doing great harm, right? We should be arguing more about it.
On the other hand, if your basic welfare theory is hedonistic (at least for animals), then one good long life compensates for thousands of short miserable ones—because what matters is qualia, not individuals. And though I don’t deny animals suffer all the time, I guess their “default welfare setting” must be positive if their reward system (at least for vertebrates) is to function properly.
So I guess it’s more likely that we have some sort of instance of the “repugnant conclusion” here.
Ofc, this doesn’t imply we shouldn’t intervene on wild environments to reduce suffering or increase happiness. What is at stake is: U(destroying habitats) > U(restoring habitats)
This is something interesting that I’ve been thinking about too, as someone who identifies as an environmentalist and who cares about animals. I would say most mainstream environmentalists promote rewilding but it’s not that common with Effective Environmentalism from what I’ve seen so far. You might say it gets lumped in with afforestation but that isn’t exactly rewilding nor that popular within EE anyway. Certainly the issue of more wild animal suffering is one I’ve raised when talking to less-EA aligned folks about rewilding and that’s not gone down well but I haven’t seen it discussed much in EE spaces.
Good point, thanks. However, even if EE and Wild animals welfare advocates do not conflict in their intermediary goals, their ultimate goals do collide, right? For the former, habitat destruction is an evil, and habitat restoration is good—even if it’s not immediately effective.
Does your feeling that the default state is positive also apply to farm animals? Their reward system would be shaped by aritifical selection for the past few generations, but it is not immediately clear to me if you think that would make a difference.
First, it’s not a feeling, it’s a hypothesis. Please, do not mistake one for the other.
It could apply to them if they were not observed to be under stress conditions and captivity, and in behaviors consistent with psychological suffering—like neurotic ticks, vocalization or apathy.
(Tbh, I don’t quite see your point here, but I guess you possibly don’t see mine, either)
If wild animals have bad lives on net, then indiscriminately increasing wild animal populations is bad under any plausible theory of population ethics.
Obviously. But then, first, Effective Environmentalists are doing great harm, right? We should be arguing more about it. On the other hand, if your basic welfare theory is hedonistic (at least for animals), then one good long life compensates for thousands of short miserable ones—because what matters is qualia, not individuals. And though I don’t deny animals suffer all the time, I guess their “default welfare setting” must be positive if their reward system (at least for vertebrates) is to function properly. So I guess it’s more likely that we have some sort of instance of the “repugnant conclusion” here. Ofc, this doesn’t imply we shouldn’t intervene on wild environments to reduce suffering or increase happiness. What is at stake is: U(destroying habitats) > U(restoring habitats)
This is something interesting that I’ve been thinking about too, as someone who identifies as an environmentalist and who cares about animals. I would say most mainstream environmentalists promote rewilding but it’s not that common with Effective Environmentalism from what I’ve seen so far. You might say it gets lumped in with afforestation but that isn’t exactly rewilding nor that popular within EE anyway. Certainly the issue of more wild animal suffering is one I’ve raised when talking to less-EA aligned folks about rewilding and that’s not gone down well but I haven’t seen it discussed much in EE spaces.
Good point, thanks. However, even if EE and Wild animals welfare advocates do not conflict in their intermediary goals, their ultimate goals do collide, right? For the former, habitat destruction is an evil, and habitat restoration is good—even if it’s not immediately effective.
Does your feeling that the default state is positive also apply to farm animals? Their reward system would be shaped by aritifical selection for the past few generations, but it is not immediately clear to me if you think that would make a difference.
First, it’s not a feeling, it’s a hypothesis. Please, do not mistake one for the other. It could apply to them if they were not observed to be under stress conditions and captivity, and in behaviors consistent with psychological suffering—like neurotic ticks, vocalization or apathy. (Tbh, I don’t quite see your point here, but I guess you possibly don’t see mine, either)