I was so excited to see the title of this winning cause proposal!
And then I was so surprised to see that the reasoning focused on the concern that pesticides may, unintentionally, harm people.
I love the idea of fighting pesticide use! And I love it for a totally different reason:
It seems to me that fighting pesticides could help quadrillions of insects and other animals.
While I’m not a scientist, it seems to me that insects probably have feelings. I’m getting this idea from three things: (1) First, the insect-related pop-sci news articles I’ve read (e.g. this). (2) Second, simply observing insects, and seeing how they sometimes seem scared of me and try to evade me, the same way other animals do. (3 ) And third, hypothesizing, without evidence, that perhaps we animals developed sentience around the same time as we developed the ability to move, as a way to get away from harmful stimuli. And insects can move.
Even if someone doesn’t agree with me that insects probably have feelings, I think most reasonable people would have to admit that there’s some chance that insects might have feelings. Like let’s say a 10% chance. Google says there are 10 quintillion insects alive. So even a 10% chance of insects having feelings is, in a sense, morally equivalent to 1 quintillion beings who we know for sure have feelings. That would mean we should care a lot about insects’ feelings. Even if insects are somehow less sentient than other animals, 1 quintillion half-sentient beings is still the moral equivalent of half-a-quintillion totally-sentient beings.
I realize the things I’m saying are counterintuitive. They feel counterintuitive to me, too, even though I’m the one saying them. And I understand why people are more passionate about helping larger animals, like people. I’ll admit that I don’t do much in my life to protect insects. And I have killed huge numbers of insects in my life. But I think it would be nice if we could try to treat insects a little better.
I would assume pesticides cause immense suffering to the animals they’re designed to kill. So, even if only a fraction of insects are harmed by pesticides, we could probably do a huge amount of good by reducing pesticide use! 🐞
Plus, pesticides harm multiple types of animal species, not just insects and humans, right?
Anyway, kudos to Ben and OP! Down with pesticides!
Thanks alene! These are interesting points and are important to think about. I agree there’s a decent chance that insects are sentient (maybe 0.1 to 20% range with extreme uncertainty, and variance depending on which specific species we are talking about). The best source I know on this is Rethink Priorities’ report, with exhaustive results here, and the bottom line opinion of each author summarised here. The number of insects and potential for suffering is gravely concerning.
However, I don’t think that justifies a complete opposition to pesticide use. Pesticides are extremely useful and valuable for feeding more humans and reducing the amount of land needed for crops. Washuck et al. (2022) analysed studies of pesticide use in the U.S. and Canada 2015-2019. They calculated that pesticides preserved millions of hectares of habitats and fed millions more humans (table below).
But there’s a deep discussion about ecology, climate change, food systems, agriculture, wild animal welfare and much else that besides that complicates the above; I really don’t know.
As well as the large benefits of pesticides, the other reason I would tentatively oppose a blanket ban is tractability. Regulating organophosphates is already difficult; trying to ban all pesticides would be extremely difficult politically, with profound opposition by industry and agriculture. Especially if the main benefits of such a ban were based on insect suffering.
I think there’s a middle way though, following the lead of the wild animal welfare ideas I’ve heard. That idea would be to try to guide farmers/governments/industry to pesticides that cause less suffering as they move away from organophosphates. I would need to read and think a lot more about this to figure out my own views, but this report by the Wild Animal Initiative looks promising. Interestingly, they note a possibility that organophosphates are a (relatively) more humane class because they are faster acting. Non-pesticide based methods may be most promising. It appears unclear and complex though.
I’m not sure of the promise of trying to guide farmers to more humane alternatives—at face value that seems a more difficult outcome to reliably achieve than bans/de-registrations. But if work on organophosphates or pesticide-suicide prevention built networks to influence pesticide policy in LMICs, that may be a resource to layer in insect welfare efforts in the future.
I was so excited to see the title of this winning cause proposal!
And then I was so surprised to see that the reasoning focused on the concern that pesticides may, unintentionally, harm people.
I love the idea of fighting pesticide use! And I love it for a totally different reason:
It seems to me that fighting pesticides could help quadrillions of insects and other animals.
While I’m not a scientist, it seems to me that insects probably have feelings. I’m getting this idea from three things: (1) First, the insect-related pop-sci news articles I’ve read (e.g. this). (2) Second, simply observing insects, and seeing how they sometimes seem scared of me and try to evade me, the same way other animals do. (3 ) And third, hypothesizing, without evidence, that perhaps we animals developed sentience around the same time as we developed the ability to move, as a way to get away from harmful stimuli. And insects can move.
Even if someone doesn’t agree with me that insects probably have feelings, I think most reasonable people would have to admit that there’s some chance that insects might have feelings. Like let’s say a 10% chance. Google says there are 10 quintillion insects alive. So even a 10% chance of insects having feelings is, in a sense, morally equivalent to 1 quintillion beings who we know for sure have feelings. That would mean we should care a lot about insects’ feelings. Even if insects are somehow less sentient than other animals, 1 quintillion half-sentient beings is still the moral equivalent of half-a-quintillion totally-sentient beings.
I realize the things I’m saying are counterintuitive. They feel counterintuitive to me, too, even though I’m the one saying them. And I understand why people are more passionate about helping larger animals, like people. I’ll admit that I don’t do much in my life to protect insects. And I have killed huge numbers of insects in my life. But I think it would be nice if we could try to treat insects a little better.
I would assume pesticides cause immense suffering to the animals they’re designed to kill. So, even if only a fraction of insects are harmed by pesticides, we could probably do a huge amount of good by reducing pesticide use! 🐞
Plus, pesticides harm multiple types of animal species, not just insects and humans, right?
Anyway, kudos to Ben and OP! Down with pesticides!
Thanks alene! These are interesting points and are important to think about. I agree there’s a decent chance that insects are sentient (maybe 0.1 to 20% range with extreme uncertainty, and variance depending on which specific species we are talking about). The best source I know on this is Rethink Priorities’ report, with exhaustive results here, and the bottom line opinion of each author summarised here. The number of insects and potential for suffering is gravely concerning.
However, I don’t think that justifies a complete opposition to pesticide use. Pesticides are extremely useful and valuable for feeding more humans and reducing the amount of land needed for crops. Washuck et al. (2022) analysed studies of pesticide use in the U.S. and Canada 2015-2019. They calculated that pesticides preserved millions of hectares of habitats and fed millions more humans (table below).
But there’s a deep discussion about ecology, climate change, food systems, agriculture, wild animal welfare and much else that besides that complicates the above; I really don’t know.
As well as the large benefits of pesticides, the other reason I would tentatively oppose a blanket ban is tractability. Regulating organophosphates is already difficult; trying to ban all pesticides would be extremely difficult politically, with profound opposition by industry and agriculture. Especially if the main benefits of such a ban were based on insect suffering.
I think there’s a middle way though, following the lead of the wild animal welfare ideas I’ve heard. That idea would be to try to guide farmers/governments/industry to pesticides that cause less suffering as they move away from organophosphates. I would need to read and think a lot more about this to figure out my own views, but this report by the Wild Animal Initiative looks promising. Interestingly, they note a possibility that organophosphates are a (relatively) more humane class because they are faster acting. Non-pesticide based methods may be most promising. It appears unclear and complex though.
I’m not sure of the promise of trying to guide farmers to more humane alternatives—at face value that seems a more difficult outcome to reliably achieve than bans/de-registrations. But if work on organophosphates or pesticide-suicide prevention built networks to influence pesticide policy in LMICs, that may be a resource to layer in insect welfare efforts in the future.
Anyway, interesting comment!