I think it'd help if you spelled out more how you think these views contrast. They seem obviously consistent to me (if you have totalist views in population ethics, you think less suffering would be good).
Thanks for the comment. It is consistent indeed, you are right. I was trying to argue, solely focusing on reduction of suffering when it comes to animals may be inconsistent with the totalist views but in fact it seems plausible to say that reduction of suffering in animals is the best way to increase total utility of their well-being.
Can we rationally advocate prioritizing reduction of animal suffering, while avoiding negative utilitarianism?
It seems reduction of animal suffering and total views of population ethics co-exist in mainstream EA but aren't each of them based on contrasting ethical views?
This is the third in a sequence of posts taken from my recent report: Why Did Environmentalism Become Partisan?
Summary
Rising partisanship did not make environmentalism more popular or politically effective. Instead, it saw flat or falling overall public opinion, fewer major legislative achievements, and fluctuating executive actions.
Public Opinion...
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
I think it'd help if you spelled out more how you think these views contrast. They seem obviously consistent to me (if you have totalist views in population ethics, you think less suffering would be good).
Thanks for the comment. It is consistent indeed, you are right. I was trying to argue, solely focusing on reduction of suffering when it comes to animals may be inconsistent with the totalist views but in fact it seems plausible to say that reduction of suffering in animals is the best way to increase total utility of their well-being.