PhD Student studying how the immune system interacts with specific microorganisms
https://www.facebook.com/jordan.warner.56/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-warner-a37667151/
Jordan_Warner
Karma: 163
Fertility control is the kind of intervention very few people would have a problem with as long as all the consequences were thought through, I guess it’s everything else in the space of possible solutions that makes me nervous.
I’ll concede that opposing research because I suspect I won’t like the conclusions is blatant science denialism. This is more about me trying to explain my feelings than my logical conclusions. I guess I worry it will be convincing to people with a different ethical framework to me, and I won’t be able to articulate an equally convincing objection?
I’m totally anthropomorphising here, but if another species decided that humans lives were net negative and chose the simplest solution I’d object, even if they had a lot of convincing research to back them up.
Why Research into Wild Animal Suffering Concerns me
I’d say another risk of making political engagement a big part of EA would be alienating non-US citizens, who hear quite enough about US politics everywhere else!
Engagement with politics divides the movement geographically as well as politically, which I think is worth considering. While the rest of the world clearly cares about US politics, I don’t think it would be good for EA to encourage foreign interference in any countries elections, so political discussions are alienating to the rest of us.
This isn’t a reason to never engage with politics, and I’d imagine political action in other countries could be even more high impact than in the US, by virtue of being more neglected (probably less impactful though, to be honest). It’s just another reason to minimise the role of politics in the movement.
I think the entire space of dramatically intervening in natural ecosystems in order to align them with our own moral preferences should make anyone nervous (including fertility control , that could go horribly wrong), especially when the space includes “wiping out animals”.
I’m not sure I’d call it one thing exactly, that covers everything from total extinction of all life to specific extinction of some species to merely human management of existing populations. The last option is something we already do to some extent, deer aren’t going to hunt themselves and we already wiped out most of the wolves.
The fact that I consider some plausible solutions repellent is not a reason not to look into the space, I’m just trying to explain why I’m averse to it.