Averting extinction makes sense in near termist ethical frameworks (8 billion people dying is very bad), but extinction is not the only category of existential risk, and it’s the only one that can readily be justified within neartermist frameworks.
Doesn’t this ignore the impacts of averting extinction on almost all moral patients in the near term, i.e. nonhuman animals, farmed and wild? Why think those are good or outweighed by the positive impacts on humans?
Sorry, I’m just very human centric in my moral thinking. Considering non human moral patients requires deliberate effort, and it’s not something that readily comes to mind.
That said, while I do grant non human animals some consideration in some moral decision making, I don’t particularly care for them here:
I’d destroy the rest of the biosphere in a heartbeat so that humanity may flourish among the stars.
Doesn’t this ignore the impacts of averting extinction on almost all moral patients in the near term, i.e. nonhuman animals, farmed and wild? Why think those are good or outweighed by the positive impacts on humans?
Sorry, I’m just very human centric in my moral thinking. Considering non human moral patients requires deliberate effort, and it’s not something that readily comes to mind.
That said, while I do grant non human animals some consideration in some moral decision making, I don’t particularly care for them here:
I’d destroy the rest of the biosphere in a heartbeat so that humanity may flourish among the stars.