So I’m really not certain that we are the most moral civilization.
I agree it is pretty unclear whether humanity has so far increased/decreased overall welfare, because this is probably dominated by the quite unclear effects on wild animals.
However, FWIW, the way I think about it is that the most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future (of course, one could define “most moral species” in some other way). I think the extinction of humanity would lead to a greater reduction in the value of the future than that of any other species, so I would say humans are the most moral civilization.
I agree that most of the result ends up depending on the effects on wild animals. Always troublesome that so much of the impact depends on that when we have so many uncertainties.
most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future
We probably don’t have the same definition—if wild lives are net negative and we destroy everything by accident, I wouldn’t count that as being “moral” because it’s not due to moral values. But the definition doesn’t matter that much, though.
Still, I’m not certain that the “value in the future” of industrial civilization (a different concept than humanity) will be so positive, when there are so many uncertainties (and that we could continue to expand even further factory farming).
Hi Corentin,
I agree it is pretty unclear whether humanity has so far increased/decreased overall welfare, because this is probably dominated by the quite unclear effects on wild animals.
However, FWIW, the way I think about it is that the most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future (of course, one could define “most moral species” in some other way). I think the extinction of humanity would lead to a greater reduction in the value of the future than that of any other species, so I would say humans are the most moral civilization.
I agree that most of the result ends up depending on the effects on wild animals. Always troublesome that so much of the impact depends on that when we have so many uncertainties.
We probably don’t have the same definition—if wild lives are net negative and we destroy everything by accident, I wouldn’t count that as being “moral” because it’s not due to moral values. But the definition doesn’t matter that much, though.
Still, I’m not certain that the “value in the future” of industrial civilization (a different concept than humanity) will be so positive, when there are so many uncertainties (and that we could continue to expand even further factory farming).