Most animals are wild animals, so the answer to this question should focus on them.
Most animals today are wild animals, but for the answer to this question to focus on them, most future animals would also have to be wild.
Fwiw my intuition is that most future animals will be wild because it seems more likely that we terraform by seeding ecosystems than that we export energy inefficient factory farming. That said: a) I feel uncertain about that position. b) The post-AGI future will be pretty weird, and our distinction of wild vs farmed animals probably won’t map neatly onto future sentient beings.
Most animals are wild animals, so the answer to this question should focus on them.
Even granting that the overwhelming majority are wild animals, this doesn’t necessarily imply we should focus on them. We have to factor in the welfare difference between the two (welfare ranges and quality of life in practice).
Most animals are wild animals, so the answer to this question should focus on them.
Not necessarily, because S-risks may be more important in expectation (e.g. a malevolent or vindictive ASI tiles the universe with extremely energy-efficient animal-like beings of pure suffering).
Most animals are wild animals, so the answer to this question should focus on them.
I can imagine a future where most animals are farmed animals. I’m not saying it’s particularly likely, but if humans spread to other planets, I think we’re more likely to take factory farming with us than take nature with us. Farmed animals should be part of this convo.
So does that mean you think it’s likely that we will spread to other planets without spreading ecosystems? If we spread ecosystems it seems likely that we would also spread at least some wild animals. And I think we have good reasons to do so—to promote good atmospheres and other ecosystem services.
I feel pretty skeptical that humans capable of going to other galaxies would not have realized the inefficiencies of meat and would still not have made competitive substitutes.
From @Tristan Katz :
Does WAW dwarf FAW in expectation? Or is FAW still important to consider in this discussion?
Most animals today are wild animals, but for the answer to this question to focus on them, most future animals would also have to be wild.
Fwiw my intuition is that most future animals will be wild because it seems more likely that we terraform by seeding ecosystems than that we export energy inefficient factory farming. That said:
a) I feel uncertain about that position.
b) The post-AGI future will be pretty weird, and our distinction of wild vs farmed animals probably won’t map neatly onto future sentient beings.
Even granting that the overwhelming majority are wild animals, this doesn’t necessarily imply we should focus on them. We have to factor in the welfare difference between the two (welfare ranges and quality of life in practice).
Yes
Not necessarily, because S-risks may be more important in expectation (e.g. a malevolent or vindictive ASI tiles the universe with extremely energy-efficient animal-like beings of pure suffering).
I can imagine a future where most animals are farmed animals. I’m not saying it’s particularly likely, but if humans spread to other planets, I think we’re more likely to take factory farming with us than take nature with us. Farmed animals should be part of this convo.
So does that mean you think it’s likely that we will spread to other planets without spreading ecosystems? If we spread ecosystems it seems likely that we would also spread at least some wild animals. And I think we have good reasons to do so—to promote good atmospheres and other ecosystem services.
I feel pretty skeptical that humans capable of going to other galaxies would not have realized the inefficiencies of meat and would still not have made competitive substitutes.