I have recently been recruited to serve as "advisor" at the Foundational Reseach Institute (FRI); see their official list of advisors. In their own words, the FRI
- brings together researchers from diverse fields to examine how humanity can best reduce suffering in the future. We draw on insights from artificial intelligence, technology, anthropic reasoning, international relations, sociology, public policy, ethics, animal welfare, and many other disciplines.
- That a universe imbued by human civilization is better than one that is not [...] is a very common assumption in futuristic discussions, but not one that is self-evident. What if such a colonization process would actually constitute a catastrophe of cosmic proportions? Computer scientist and ethicist Brian Tomasik has, in a couple of recent essays The importance of wild-animal suffering and Applied welfare biology and why wild-animal advocates should focus on not spreading nature, highlighted a way in which it could turn into such a catastrophe. In the first of these, he begins with quoting Dawkins (1995):
- The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. (p 131)
Aargh, is this really a thing? With this analysis, a big joint euthanasia would be really ethical (as humans are - suffering - animals). But it seems not so interesting to definie ethical in such a way so that there is consensus that we do not want it. Shouldn't it rather be _net_ suffering that's the key concept? I.e. other animals' joy should count as well?
SvaraRaderaWorth reading in this context is the Wikipedia article on negative utilitarianism and Toby Ord's paper Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian.
Raderathanks!
RaderaEtisk diskussion grundad på känslohedonism blir lätt en freak show... Människor är inte mer värda än grisar i en sådan filosofi. Och grisar äter vi.
SvaraRaderaFör att upphöra med denna freakshow behöver vi antingen
Radera(a) sluta låtsas som om vi brydde oss om andra kännande varelsers lidande, eller
(b) ändra vårt beteende.
Vilket förordar du - (a) eller (b)?