I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative.
Could a focus on reducing suffering, risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into a simplistic pleasure /β pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature?
What would change, if wild nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services nature provides to humans?
I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative.
Could a focus on reducing suffering, risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into a simplistic pleasure /β pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature?
What would change, if wild nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services nature provides to humans?