Re: "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals

On Friday, November 13, 2020 at 10:43:08 PM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
> On 2020-11-12 3:25 a.m., Rupert wrote: 
> > This is interesting. 
> > 
> > https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/hilary-greaves-comparing-existence-and-non-existence/ 
> >
> I listened up to the 12 minute mark. I don't have the background in 
> those concepts or the patience or inclination to acquire them. And I get 
> suspicious when terms like "better" are used. Better for whom or what? 

Yes, fine, obviously that would require clarifying, so I'd have to check the bit you were listening to, but she's a consequentialist, right, so she probably means "better in the impartial-reason-implying sense", as Parfit once put it, and as I once discussed with you, but you got impatient with Parfit's terminology, so okay maybe you want to say it's not a valid concept, because there is no "better from an impartial point of view", but only "better from the point of view of the well-being or preferences of a particular individual". I mean, I'd need to check how well her discussion holds up under that critique. But she's talking about existence non-comparativism, right, so presumably whatever she says could be re-framed to apply to that notion of "better" instead. I mean, I'll have to re-read the transcript and get back to you on that.

> I 
> think there is a good argument that extinction of the human race would 
> the best result for the rest of the members of earth's ecosystem. 

That kind of thing is discussed a lot in the effective altruist movement, but I could tell you more about why it's not a commonly accepted view, even for people who consider themselves "anti-speciesist" and "suffering-focused"; I could show you the books of Magnus Vinding, for example. I mean, yes, of course you can *argue* for that view, and I suppose there are at least a few suffering-focused people who do say "Well, yeah, actually human extinction wouldn't be all that bad or maybe even desirable". So yes, of course you can *argue* it. But it doesn't necessarily follow that then you would go around saying "Hey, let's try to bring about human extinction". There are various reasons why you probably still wouldn't do that. Also of course some people do try to do just that, like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement for example, as in let's just stop reproducing, but obviously most effective altruists would realise that's a bit pie-in-the-sky.

By the way, I have to admit that when I asked Brian Tomasik "Would you push a button that would instantly and painlessly destroy all sentient life", he dodged the question, as in he probably thought it would be counter-productive to say out loud what he really thought. So yeah, okay, he's got a take.

Also, I've been reading Oscar Horta's work on the magnitude of the problem of wild-animal suffering (specifically, the fact that a lot of species are "r-selected" and just keep going by having a really large number of offspring most of whom just die before they ever manage to find any food), and I've even done a bit of a volunteer research project about it, myself, so I just want to mention that that's relevant here. Like, sure you can argue that continuing the existence of our species is net-negative for other sentient individuals, but it's not as though everything would be peachy for those sentient individuals if we went extinct.

There are people who talk about "s-risks" (risks of literally astronomical quantities of suffering) and "x-risks" (risks that the human species will permanently lose all its future potential) and some people say it's more important to mitigate the s-risks than the x-risks. So okay, fine, the point is there's a debate happening here, people are trying to figure this stuff out. I think Hillary Greaves has probably decided that mitigating x-risks is the top priority, probably because she believes the possibility that the human species could fulfil its full potential and maybe abolish all suffering of biological life (you can look at David Pearce's on-line writings for that kind of speculation about our far future) is a possibility worth holding out for even if it's got a pretty low probability, because she's a classical utilitarian and not a negative utilitarian (negative utilitarians think reducing suffering takes priority over increasing happiness). So yes, of course you can counter-argue, the point is there's a debate happening here, these people find it worth their effort to try to figure this stuff out and have discussions about it.

> Therefore pandemics are a good thing. 

There are lots of ways to argue for that kind of idea. There are plenty of people who simply say "Well, COVID-19 pandemic is pretty bad, but it could have been worse, and at least now we'll maybe take climate change a bit more seriously because it's a wake-up call, so in that case it's net good". Like, that kind of argument. Or there are other arguments too, like the kind of argument you suggest, or probably a fair few others. There are plenty of people who have suggested COVID-19 could turn out to be long-run net-good. While of course simultaneously acknowledging that it's catastrophically bad for some human individuals.

I mean, what about the war that's going on between Armenia and Azerbaijan right now, Armenia is the country my wife was born in, and her loved ones were at risk of being called to go and fight (Armenia has surrendered now but that could be just a temporary cessation of hostilities), like, there surely must be people living in the US who would be comfortable saying in public "It would be net good for Armenia to keep fighting" without expecting to harm their reputation, right? When obviously that does mean that there are some people who will die a horrible death...

So, the question of what is net-good or net-bad is pretty complicated after all. Obviously I would be rather pleased if I heard the news that the COVID-19 pandemic had finished.


> And "long term" nothing matters 
> because our sun will go super-nova at some point and destroy everything 
> in our solar system. 

Future of sentient life is finite, sure (if we're dismissing religious views). I don't get how it follows that "nothing matters". I mean, your own life is finite after all, but you probably still find a few things worth doing don't you, you do bother to get out of bed in the morning? So yeah, not really following that line of thought. I don't get why it makes a crucial difference whether the future duration is finite or infinite. 

> Too deep and not deep enough. I prefer common sense 
> and plain logic and semantics. I guess I'm simple minded.

I think it's interesting to explore what you mean by "common sense" here. I mean, sure, we're talking about topics here that are not very commonly discussed. But Mari and I are trying to have our first baby, I find it pretty consistent with "common sense" for me to take an interest in questions about human extinction.

Anyway, if you just don't like the podcast all that much that's fine, we can talk about something else, or find something else to do.