If in a few decades there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that i) nematodes are sentient, ii) have negative lives in the sense the vast majority of random humans who are the most informed about the lives of nematodes would prefer not existing over existing as a random nematode, and iii) the intensity of the subjective experiences of nematodes is sufficiently high for their welfare to be considered, would you consider overconfident your claim that āthe idea that we should focus on the welfare of nematodes is absurdā?
āIf in a few decades we do the thing that you donāt think is possible, will you admit that it was possibleā
Sure, would also admit I was wrong if researchers find an answer to āwhy is there something rather than nothingā, which I also believe is unanswerable.
Even if you get a confident answer to these questions, which Iām confident you wonāt, the outcome would inevitably be so absurd (nematodes immediately becoming moral priority over everything else) that society would have to discard them anyway or else collapse
If in a few decades there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that i) nematodes are sentient, ii) have negative lives in the sense the vast majority of random humans who are the most informed about the lives of nematodes would prefer not existing over existing as a random nematode, and iii) the intensity of the subjective experiences of nematodes is sufficiently high for their welfare to be considered, would you consider overconfident your claim that āthe idea that we should focus on the welfare of nematodes is absurdā?
āIf in a few decades we do the thing that you donāt think is possible, will you admit that it was possibleā
Sure, would also admit I was wrong if researchers find an answer to āwhy is there something rather than nothingā, which I also believe is unanswerable.
Even if you get a confident answer to these questions, which Iām confident you wonāt, the outcome would inevitably be so absurd (nematodes immediately becoming moral priority over everything else) that society would have to discard them anyway or else collapse