âit at least somewhat increases the risk of animal life being propagated on more planets. This seems extremely bad, since we have no idea how to ensure that those animals will live good lives.â
Do you assume that wild animal life is net negative?
If given a magic button that instantaneously wiped out all wild animals, ignoring the consequences for humans of doing this, would you press it?
Hi Henry, thanks for your question. I should be clear that I am speaking about my own opinions in this comment, not any institutional position of Wild Animal Initiative
I do not assume that wild animal life is net negative. I feel pretty clueless about the typical quality of life in the wild. The reason I work on wild animal welfare science is in part because I think people have been way too quick to jump from hypothesis to conclusion on the quality of life in the wild, and empirical studies are important to fill that knowledge gap.
Given the above, the main reason for my comment about space propagation is that I feel risk averse about spreading life we donât understand well onto other planets (although I suspect there are a number of philosophical positions besides my own that could make one skeptical of bringing wild animal life to space in a thoughtless way). It seems very likely that even if life on earth for wild animals was knowably great, it could still be quite bad on other planets or in space, depending on which animals are brought to space, how they are treated, what kinds of experiments are tried on the way to successful propagation, etc.
People are very thoughtless about wild animal welfare when reintroducing animals to habitats on Earth already (there are a number of conservation failures that come to mind), so I suspect that humans might be equally thoughtless about animal welfare when bringing animals to space. I might think the average pet dog has a great life and still be hesitant to suggest that really inexperienced owners buy pet dogs they donât know how to take care of.
Maybe Iâm misunderstanding you, but your last statement seems to imply that anyone who is concerned about wild animals having potentially net-negative lives should be a button-pusher? Iâm not sure that follows except under very pure-EV-chasing utilitarianism, which is not my moral position nor a position I recommend. Personally, I would not push the button.
Uncertainty about the net utility of wild animals is also true of human life. Itâs an open question whether the average human life is net negative or net positive.
Would you therefore also say that propagating human lives on other planets is âextremely badâ?
I think there are extremely obvious disanalogies along several axes here. (1) agentic differences between humans going to space by choice and wild animals being taken or bred there without agency, (2) the difference in our general ability to understand non-human animal welfare and human welfare, (3) the general set point of best guesses as to the net positivity and net negativity of human lives. Without giving me more context on your premises or underlying moral values, itâs hard to know where to begin a response.
I suspect we arenât reasoning from the same principles and therefore there isnât much point in continuing the conversation, but feel free to expand on what your views would be about bringing wild animals to space (or humans) if youâd like.
Interesting questions, Henry! I strongly upvoted your comment[1].
âit at least somewhat increases the risk of animal life being propagated on more planets. This seems extremely bad, since we have no idea how to ensure that those animals will live good lives.â
Do you assume that wild animal life is net negative?
I share your scepticism about expanding wildlife being extremely bad. I am uncertain not only about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives, but also about whether increasing their population is easier or harder than decreasing it. I guess many are also uncertain about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives, but think that increasing the population of wild animals is easier than decreasing it, in which case not expanding wild life to other planets makes sense to maintain options more open.
If given a magic button that instantaneously wiped out all wild animals, ignoring the consequences for humans of doing this, would you press it?
Many are against expanding wild life based on the assumption that expanding it is easier than decreasing it. This suggests decreasing wild life is beneficial, but not necessarily until there is none at all. At some point, expanding wild life could become easier than decreasing it, such that decreasing it further would overall close options.
I think people like me who are very uncertain about whether future welfare is positive or negative should not have strong views about whether the permanent elimination of all sentient beings would be beneficial or harmful, which is counterintuitive. However, I believe it has the very commonsensical implication of focussing on improving existing lives instead of increasing or decreasing the number of lives (even if one strongly endorses maximising total welfare like I do).
âit at least somewhat increases the risk of animal life being propagated on more planets. This seems extremely bad, since we have no idea how to ensure that those animals will live good lives.â
Do you assume that wild animal life is net negative?
If given a magic button that instantaneously wiped out all wild animals, ignoring the consequences for humans of doing this, would you press it?
Hi Henry, thanks for your question. I should be clear that I am speaking about my own opinions in this comment, not any institutional position of Wild Animal Initiative
I do not assume that wild animal life is net negative. I feel pretty clueless about the typical quality of life in the wild. The reason I work on wild animal welfare science is in part because I think people have been way too quick to jump from hypothesis to conclusion on the quality of life in the wild, and empirical studies are important to fill that knowledge gap.
Given the above, the main reason for my comment about space propagation is that I feel risk averse about spreading life we donât understand well onto other planets (although I suspect there are a number of philosophical positions besides my own that could make one skeptical of bringing wild animal life to space in a thoughtless way). It seems very likely that even if life on earth for wild animals was knowably great, it could still be quite bad on other planets or in space, depending on which animals are brought to space, how they are treated, what kinds of experiments are tried on the way to successful propagation, etc.
People are very thoughtless about wild animal welfare when reintroducing animals to habitats on Earth already (there are a number of conservation failures that come to mind), so I suspect that humans might be equally thoughtless about animal welfare when bringing animals to space. I might think the average pet dog has a great life and still be hesitant to suggest that really inexperienced owners buy pet dogs they donât know how to take care of.
Maybe Iâm misunderstanding you, but your last statement seems to imply that anyone who is concerned about wild animals having potentially net-negative lives should be a button-pusher? Iâm not sure that follows except under very pure-EV-chasing utilitarianism, which is not my moral position nor a position I recommend. Personally, I would not push the button.
Uncertainty about the net utility of wild animals is also true of human life. Itâs an open question whether the average human life is net negative or net positive.
Would you therefore also say that propagating human lives on other planets is âextremely badâ?
I think there are extremely obvious disanalogies along several axes here. (1) agentic differences between humans going to space by choice and wild animals being taken or bred there without agency, (2) the difference in our general ability to understand non-human animal welfare and human welfare, (3) the general set point of best guesses as to the net positivity and net negativity of human lives. Without giving me more context on your premises or underlying moral values, itâs hard to know where to begin a response.
I suspect we arenât reasoning from the same principles and therefore there isnât much point in continuing the conversation, but feel free to expand on what your views would be about bringing wild animals to space (or humans) if youâd like.
Interesting questions, Henry! I strongly upvoted your comment[1].
I share your scepticism about expanding wildlife being extremely bad. I am uncertain not only about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives, but also about whether increasing their population is easier or harder than decreasing it. I guess many are also uncertain about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives, but think that increasing the population of wild animals is easier than decreasing it, in which case not expanding wild life to other planets makes sense to maintain options more open.
Many are against expanding wild life based on the assumption that expanding it is easier than decreasing it. This suggests decreasing wild life is beneficial, but not necessarily until there is none at all. At some point, expanding wild life could become easier than decreasing it, such that decreasing it further would overall close options.
I think people like me who are very uncertain about whether future welfare is positive or negative should not have strong views about whether the permanent elimination of all sentient beings would be beneficial or harmful, which is counterintuitive. However, I believe it has the very commonsensical implication of focussing on improving existing lives instead of increasing or decreasing the number of lives (even if one strongly endorses maximising total welfare like I do).
It had â2 karma before my vote. Maitaining a scout mindset is not easy!