I don’t think the analogy with subsistence humans is a good one because the basic argument for net negative animal welfare doesn’t apply to them. The basic argument is: most animals have very short lives that culminate in a painful death, and a few days of life isn’t enough to recoup the harms of a painful death. This doesn’t apply to long-lived hunter-gatherers. Fwiw, I don’t think it applies to animals either—it seems plausible that elephants mostly live good lives, for example. But the most numerous animals are worms, then insects, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles—nearly all the most numerous animals have bad lives.
I don’t think hedonic utilitarianism is a complete frame either—I’m an objective list theorist fwiw, but I don’t think that it has huge implications because animals don’t have many significant non-hedonic goods. I don’t think nature has intrinsic value, but even if I did, this would be outweighed by the staggeringly large amount of suffering that exists even in small plots of lands (hundreds of bugs per square feet). As I said in that piece, I think even pretty small chunks of land could contain extreme suffering, so this probably swamps whatever intrinsic value nature might have.
I agree that biodiversity isn’t automatically the same as increasing ecosystem productivity. In fact, I’d generally tend to support preserving herbivores, as they lower plant populations—so we could find common ground there. I’m skeptical about carnivores generally, though depends on the detail. I’d also be skeptical of insect zoos because those might be used to argue for preserving nature. I saw your recent post where you describe precision agriculture which would prevent conversion of nature into farmland. I find this very alarming! I think farmland has fewer arthropods!
Thanks!
I don’t think the analogy with subsistence humans is a good one because the basic argument for net negative animal welfare doesn’t apply to them. The basic argument is: most animals have very short lives that culminate in a painful death, and a few days of life isn’t enough to recoup the harms of a painful death. This doesn’t apply to long-lived hunter-gatherers. Fwiw, I don’t think it applies to animals either—it seems plausible that elephants mostly live good lives, for example. But the most numerous animals are worms, then insects, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles—nearly all the most numerous animals have bad lives.
I don’t think hedonic utilitarianism is a complete frame either—I’m an objective list theorist fwiw, but I don’t think that it has huge implications because animals don’t have many significant non-hedonic goods. I don’t think nature has intrinsic value, but even if I did, this would be outweighed by the staggeringly large amount of suffering that exists even in small plots of lands (hundreds of bugs per square feet). As I said in that piece, I think even pretty small chunks of land could contain extreme suffering, so this probably swamps whatever intrinsic value nature might have.
I agree that biodiversity isn’t automatically the same as increasing ecosystem productivity. In fact, I’d generally tend to support preserving herbivores, as they lower plant populations—so we could find common ground there. I’m skeptical about carnivores generally, though depends on the detail. I’d also be skeptical of insect zoos because those might be used to argue for preserving nature. I saw your recent post where you describe precision agriculture which would prevent conversion of nature into farmland. I find this very alarming! I think farmland has fewer arthropods!
Want to come on the podcast to discuss more?