To add to the other comment, (to my knowledge) Brian Tomasik coined the terms s-risks and suffering-focused ethics, established foundational research into the problem of wild animal suffering, and had a part in co-founding two existing organizations that have a strong focus on reducing s-risks, i.e. the Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR) and the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS).
Suffering-focused ethics refers to a broad set of moral views focused on preventing suffering (e.g. some Buddhist ethics might fall under this category).
While Brian Tomasik’s writings are written from a “suffering-focused perspective”, most of them are in the form of in-depth analyses relevant to how to reduce suffering, rather than ethical theory—which makes the work possibly relevant even if someone isn’t as suffering-focused as he is but has at least some concern for suffering. For the moral views themselves another researcher, Magnus Vinding, has written a book on suffering-focused ethics.
None of the researchers/research organizations I mention above endorse bringing about human extinction. In general, how to best reduce suffering is (rightfully, in my view) seen as quite complex in this community (as another comment hinted at).
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to imply that Tomasik supports extinction, just that, if I have to think about the strongest case against preventing it, it’s the sort of Tomasik on my shoulder that is speaking loudest.
To add to the other comment, (to my knowledge) Brian Tomasik coined the terms s-risks and suffering-focused ethics, established foundational research into the problem of wild animal suffering, and had a part in co-founding two existing organizations that have a strong focus on reducing s-risks, i.e. the Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR) and the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS).
Suffering-focused ethics refers to a broad set of moral views focused on preventing suffering (e.g. some Buddhist ethics might fall under this category).
While Brian Tomasik’s writings are written from a “suffering-focused perspective”, most of them are in the form of in-depth analyses relevant to how to reduce suffering, rather than ethical theory—which makes the work possibly relevant even if someone isn’t as suffering-focused as he is but has at least some concern for suffering. For the moral views themselves another researcher, Magnus Vinding, has written a book on suffering-focused ethics.
None of the researchers/research organizations I mention above endorse bringing about human extinction. In general, how to best reduce suffering is (rightfully, in my view) seen as quite complex in this community (as another comment hinted at).
Good clarifications, endorsed.
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to imply that Tomasik supports extinction, just that, if I have to think about the strongest case against preventing it, it’s the sort of Tomasik on my shoulder that is speaking loudest.