The number of people who want to re-engineer nature is currently much, much smaller than the number of dedicated conservationists. It is a fringe view that basically only effective altruists support, and not even all EAs. I see no reason to believe that humans will ever modify wild animals to be more happy. Humans might eventually destroy most habitats, however.
This perspective is widely restated but I’m not sure this is supportable by argument:
Isn’t it almost certain that humans will eventually destroy most existing habitats? We’ve already destroyed in the vicinity of half, right, by proportion of land?
Most social change is a fringe interest initially. If we have good reasons to care about animal welfare in the abstract, then the interest in this may continue to increase. If one does not think have confidence in these arguments, then instead, mightn’t one want to take moral uncertainty or moral pluralism more seriously?
Creating animal environments in new planets in which they would not naturally live will involve a significantly different discussion compared to the treatment of wild animals.
In general, are you trying to generalise from humans’ treatment of animals in the 21st century to humans’ treatment of animals, in which modification of animals is very difficult, to an environment for the next thousands of years, that may or may not be in a simulated environment, grown in vitro, genetically engineered, et cetera, in which modification may be less difficult. If this is the generalisation that you are trying to make, then more thorough argumentation is needed. Obviously I’m also trying to generalise to the future, but the current naturalistic biases aren’t an obviously particularly relevant factor when the future situation is fleshed out more concretely.
Although most people currently don’t want to alter nature, in any circumstances that we worry about, people will have different capacities, that shape different views, about something that would no longer be aptly called “nature”, and so we need to reason differently about what to expect.
Most people will help wild animal if they see it in trouble now.
Anyway I think that we could create nanoimplants, which will be able to prevent suffering of wild animals by blocking excessive pain in case of death or injury. But these implants will not change the ways of their ordinary life, so natural life will look like almost the same.
I am also would vote for resurrection of all sentient life, starting from humans, but also including animals from most complex one to less complex. Probably future AI could do it.
Most people will help wild animal if they see it in trouble now.
Most people I know don’t really care about wild animals. The ones who do tend to be environmentalists who care more about preserving nature as it is than maximizing welfare. Do you have any evidence that most people actually would support reducing wild animal suffering?
I am also would vote for resurrection of all sentient life, starting from humans, but also including animals from most complex one to less complex.
I don’t see what the purpose of that would be. If you’re a classical total utilitarian, you should just determine what the happiest species is and make more of that (or make utilitronium). If you’re not a classic total utilitarian, then why would creating new beings help?
The number of people who want to re-engineer nature is currently much, much smaller than the number of dedicated conservationists. It is a fringe view that basically only effective altruists support, and not even all EAs. I see no reason to believe that humans will ever modify wild animals to be more happy. Humans might eventually destroy most habitats, however.
This perspective is widely restated but I’m not sure this is supportable by argument:
Isn’t it almost certain that humans will eventually destroy most existing habitats? We’ve already destroyed in the vicinity of half, right, by proportion of land?
Most social change is a fringe interest initially. If we have good reasons to care about animal welfare in the abstract, then the interest in this may continue to increase. If one does not think have confidence in these arguments, then instead, mightn’t one want to take moral uncertainty or moral pluralism more seriously?
Creating animal environments in new planets in which they would not naturally live will involve a significantly different discussion compared to the treatment of wild animals.
In general, are you trying to generalise from humans’ treatment of animals in the 21st century to humans’ treatment of animals, in which modification of animals is very difficult, to an environment for the next thousands of years, that may or may not be in a simulated environment, grown in vitro, genetically engineered, et cetera, in which modification may be less difficult. If this is the generalisation that you are trying to make, then more thorough argumentation is needed. Obviously I’m also trying to generalise to the future, but the current naturalistic biases aren’t an obviously particularly relevant factor when the future situation is fleshed out more concretely.
Although most people currently don’t want to alter nature, in any circumstances that we worry about, people will have different capacities, that shape different views, about something that would no longer be aptly called “nature”, and so we need to reason differently about what to expect.
Most people will help wild animal if they see it in trouble now. Anyway I think that we could create nanoimplants, which will be able to prevent suffering of wild animals by blocking excessive pain in case of death or injury. But these implants will not change the ways of their ordinary life, so natural life will look like almost the same. I am also would vote for resurrection of all sentient life, starting from humans, but also including animals from most complex one to less complex. Probably future AI could do it.
Most people I know don’t really care about wild animals. The ones who do tend to be environmentalists who care more about preserving nature as it is than maximizing welfare. Do you have any evidence that most people actually would support reducing wild animal suffering?
I don’t see what the purpose of that would be. If you’re a classical total utilitarian, you should just determine what the happiest species is and make more of that (or make utilitronium). If you’re not a classic total utilitarian, then why would creating new beings help?