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.
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?
Edit: The match seems to now be over - the funds were expended in around 35 minutes. But many of these charities are great and should be supported regardless!
***
On October 22nd starting at 10:00am Pacific Time, Every.org is matching donations to select animal welfare organizations at a 2:1 rate, up to $2,000 per donor per nonprofit (so if you give up to $2,000, they will contribute up to $4,000 and the nonprofit will get up to $6,000). The first donation a donor makes to each el...
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
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.