Brian Tomasik considers more selection toward animals with faster life histories in his piece on the effects of climate change on wild animals. He seems to think itās not decisive (and ends up concluding that heās basically 50ā50 on the sign of the effects of climate change on overall animal suffering) for ~three reasons (paraphrasing Tomasik):
Some of the animals with slower life histories which get replaced are often carnivorous/āomnivorous, which might mean climate change decreases invertebrate populations.
Instability might also affect plants, which could lower net primary productivity and hence invertebrate populations.
Many of the āultimateā life forms with fast life histories will be microorganisms that we donāt put much moral weight in.
Iād be curious for how you think the arguments in the above post should change Tomasikās view, in light of these considerations.
Brian Tomasik considers more selection toward animals with faster life histories in his piece on the effects of climate change on wild animals. He seems to think itās not decisive (and ends up concluding that heās basically 50ā50 on the sign of the effects of climate change on overall animal suffering) for ~three reasons (paraphrasing Tomasik):
Some of the animals with slower life histories which get replaced are often carnivorous/āomnivorous, which might mean climate change decreases invertebrate populations.
Instability might also affect plants, which could lower net primary productivity and hence invertebrate populations.
Many of the āultimateā life forms with fast life histories will be microorganisms that we donāt put much moral weight in.
Iād be curious for how you think the arguments in the above post should change Tomasikās view, in light of these considerations.