I also think we shouldn’t give in to the temptation to directly advocate against the conservation of species
I agree, but for different reasons:
Under large uncertainty, it is better to keep options open.
Although one does not know whether wild animals have good/bad lives, wiping out nature is easier than building it.
Advocatign against conservation would lead to some wiping out of nature, and make it difficult to increase the number of wild animals if they turn out to have good lives.
However, I think arguing for conservation on the basis that i) it is valuable to humans or that ii) the beings there are having a good time could also be dangerous. i) would make it harder to change nature for the sake of improving the lives of wild animals even if human lives are not improved, and ii) would make it difficult to wipe out nature (which I think might be good if wild animals turn out to have super bad lives).
In my mind, one should argue for conservation mostly on the grounds of option value, and discussing the importance of wild animal welfare, without making strong assumptions about whether the lives of wild animals are good/bad. It would be nice if OWID included something about these points in their articles.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, rime!
I agree, but for different reasons:
Under large uncertainty, it is better to keep options open.
Although one does not know whether wild animals have good/bad lives, wiping out nature is easier than building it.
Advocatign against conservation would lead to some wiping out of nature, and make it difficult to increase the number of wild animals if they turn out to have good lives.
However, I think arguing for conservation on the basis that i) it is valuable to humans or that ii) the beings there are having a good time could also be dangerous. i) would make it harder to change nature for the sake of improving the lives of wild animals even if human lives are not improved, and ii) would make it difficult to wipe out nature (which I think might be good if wild animals turn out to have super bad lives).
In my mind, one should argue for conservation mostly on the grounds of option value, and discussing the importance of wild animal welfare, without making strong assumptions about whether the lives of wild animals are good/bad. It would be nice if OWID included something about these points in their articles.