Comment Permalink

Thanks for your comment.

I don’t think this is a compelling argument. Being less immoral than the worst doesn’t lead me to conclude we should increase the immorality further. I do think it should lead us to have compassion in so far as humanity makes it very difficult not to be immoral — it’s an evolutionary problem.
That’s true! But still very bad for many. And of course, I’m concerned about all sentient beings, not just humans — the math looks truly horrible when non-humans are in concluded. I do credit humans for unintentionally reducing wild animal suffering by being so drawn to destroying the planet, but I expect the opposite will happen in space colonization situations (i.e. we will see wildlife or create more digital minds, etc.)
I’m a longtermist in this sense. I’m concerned about us torturing non-humans not just in the next several decades, but eons after. This could look like factory farming animals, seeding wild animals, creating digital minds, bringing pets with us, and so on.

Is that transhumanism to the max? I need to learn more about those who endorse this philosophy—I imagine there is some diversity. Would the immorality in us be eradicated under the ideal circumstances, in their minds (s-risks and x-risks aside from AI acceleration)? Sounds like they are a different kind of utopian.

See in context

[Link Post] Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars. It’s a disastrous idea

by BrianK

Apr 11 20241 min read 14

10

Animal welfareCause prioritizationExistential riskSpace colonization

Frontpage

This is a linkpost for https://www.fastcompany.com/91090383/elon-musk-wants-to-colonize-mars-its-a-disastrous-idea

Expanding our deeply flawed society would only mean replicating our mistakes, our failures, and our acts of cruelty on a much larger scale.

The problem is that [optimistic longtermism is] based on the assumption that life is an inherently good thing, and looking at the state of our world, I don’t think that’s something we can count on. Right now, it’s estimated that nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, subsisting on less than $2.15 per day. Right now, there are at least five major ongoing military clashes involving nearly 30 countries, from civil war in Myanmar to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I could go on and on.

Human-caused suffering multiplies when we bring animals into the equation. We force dogs to fight each other, we race horses to death, and we trap elephants in zoos. We conduct sadistic experiments on more than 115 million animals each year. We raise and slaughter 80 billion land animals and trillions of sea animals annually for food on factory farms—large-scale industrial agricultural facilities that confine animals under torturous conditions to produce cheap meat, eggs, and milk.

Read the rest in Fast Company.

10 Reactions

Comments14

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 11:22 AM

Robi RahmanApr 11 202412

Interesting argument. However, I don't think this point about poverty is right.

The problem is that [optimistic longtermism is] based on the assumption that life is an inherently good thing, and looking at the state of our world, I don’t think that’s something we can count on. Right now, it’s estimated that nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, subsisting on less than $2.15 per day.

Poverty is arguably a relic of preindustrial society in a state of nature, and is being eliminated as technological progress raises standards of living. If we were to colonize Mars, it would probably be done by wealthy societies that have large amounts of capital per person. You might argue that conditions are so harsh on Mars that life will be unpleasant even for the wealthy, or that population growth will eventually turn Mars society into a zero-sum Malthusian hellhole, but I don't think those are your claims.

As for animal cruelty, it's pretty straightforward to propose things like a ban on animal cruelty in a Mars charter or constitution. Maybe this is politically difficult and we don't have leverage on the Mars colonist people, but then it would be even harder to ban Mars colonization altogether. Finally, this issue might be moot: it'll be really expensive to take pets and farm animals to Mars. Everyone will probably be eating hydroponic lettuce for the first fifty years anyway, not foie gras.

BrianKApr 11 202410

Thanks for your engagement.

That’s an interesting point with respect to poverty. Intuitively I don’t see any reason why there won’t be famine and war and poverty in the galaxies, as there is and presumably will continue to be on Earth, but I’ll think on it more. I really doubt folks out there will live in peace, provided they remain human. One could articulate all sorts of hellscapes by looking at what it is like for many to live on Earth.

Humans by nature are immoral. For example, most members want to eat animals, and even if they know that it is wrong to eat those among them raised in cruel conditions, they will continue to do so. Efforts to meet this demand are already underway:

https://en.ifremer.fr/Latest-news/Fish-on-the-menu-at-the-future-moon-base

https://impact.canada.ca/en/challenges/deep-space-food-challenge/finalists

https://www.deepspacefoodchallenge.org/phase1winners

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14172

https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/public-relations/growing-vegetables-on-mars-using-fish-water-and-waste

Then there is the issue of bringing pets with us — most seem to be unhappy and bored, even though most “guardians” love them very much, and wouldn’t want to go live on another planet without them.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/4/11/23673393/pets-dogs-cats-animal-welfare-boredom

In fact, this is one of the reasons some investors in space-tech—including the one I cited in the piece—are also investors in cell-cultivated meat. They understand Martians will want to eat what they already eat. The problem is that it’s unclear whether cellular agriculture is viable, or whether some colonists will insist on eating meat from animals even if cell-cultivated meat is available.

Then there is the issue of wild animal suffering.

https://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/

Granted, I think torturing digital beings on Mars might be more likely, but there’s room for suffering all around.

https://time.com/6296234/ai-should-be-terrified-of-humans/

There are many worse outcomes than the absence of life. Provided humanity remains highly immoral, as it is today, I suggest we stick to only one planet, at least for as long as it’ll have us. If humanity becomes more moral in the future, I’m happy to consider colonization then.

Robi RahmanApr 12 20244

You make some great points. If you think humanity is so immoral that a lifeless universe is better than one populated by humans, then yes, it would indeed be bad to colonize Mars, from that perspective.

I would be pretty horrified at humans taking fish aquaculture with us to Mars, in a manner as inhumane as current fish farming. However, I opened the Deep Space Food Challenge link, and it's more like what I expected: the winning entries are all plants or cellular manufacturing. (The Impact Canada page you linked to is broken.)

If we don't invent any morally relevant digital beings prior to colonizing space, then I think wild animal suffering is substantially likely to be the crux of whether it is morally good or bad to populate the cosmos.

BrianKApr 12 20245

Thanks, you too!

Perhaps you are right re: wild animal suffering.

I’ll add that insect farming is relevant too:

https://www.deepspacefoodchallenge.org/phase1winners.

Eevee🔹Apr 11 20244

For example, most members want to eat animals, and even if they know that it is wrong to eat those among them raised in cruel conditions, they will continue to do so.

I think that people continue eating animals because they're not aware of the cruel conditions in which many animals are raised, not because they like animal cruelty. Generally, when people are made aware of those cruel conditions, they oppose them. For example, a Data for Progress survey in 2022 found that 80% of respondents supported California's Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (Prop 12); the percentage of support did not vary much by party affiliation. I imagine that people living on a lunar or Martian colony will be living in closer quarters to any farmed animals there than people on Earth do, since the colonies would be smaller. So if anything, they'd be more aware of the animals' living conditions and would be more motivated to ensure the animals' well-being.

BrianKApr 11 20245

Thanks very much for the comment. As you can imagine, given my work, most of my friends and family know a lot about factory farming, and many continue to eat them, some on a daily basis. That includes plenty of my peers who identify as EAs. I don’t see a compelling reason to think colonists won’t salivate at a rib-eye or chicken wing too and act on that desire, if they can. Knowing about a problem isn’t usually enough to override our humanity. That isn’t to say some people don’t need to be educated, but this isn’t just a knowing problem; it’s a doing one.

YarrowApr 11 20245

Would you annihilate all life on Earth, if somehow you could? Are you just anti-Mars or also anti-Earth? Your argument seems to be that life itself is bad, so I’m trying to see how far that goes and where it takes you.

BrianKApr 11 20244

I’m a negative leaning utilitarian but not a negative utilitarian—I think happiness matters and that a utopia is at least marginally better than the absence of life. But I also recognize there are many outcomes worse than the absence of life, and that we are in such a state right now. Despite our best efforts, which we should continue to deploy, I expect suffering will continue to rise as humans colonize other planets and torture more animals and eventually digital minds, etc. I’ll let you determine where that might lead philosophically if one could press a button, but I’m more concerned in practice, in reality, what to do about it. My vote is the EA community focus on making humanity less immoral, slow space colonization, focus much less on x-risks and more on s-risks, stop fueling utopians, etc. Hope that clarifies!

YarrowApr 11 20241

slow space colonization

I mean, the good news (from your point of view) is that Mars colonization is going to happen pretty dang slowly. Even establishing a tiny base like the ISS or the moonbase in For All Mankind is probably going to take decades. (Elon’s timelines are always wildly optimistic, and always getting pushed back…)

The only things I can see that would make Mars colonization go fast would be things that have a disruptive or transformative impact on Earth, such as superhuman AGI.

stop fueling utopians

Don‘t feel any pressure to reply, but if you feel like it, I’m curious to know what kind of utopians or utopianism you think is dangerous.

BrianKApr 11 20243

I agree that’s good news!

It’s hard for me to make sense of whether AGI will be good to bad. I like the idea of it accelerating cellular agriculture; I hate the idea of it fueling space colonization. I could make a long list going back and forth.

Here’s an example. I don’t think this tone is helpful (though well intentioned and beautifully written): https://whatweowethefuture.com/afterwards/

YarrowApr 11 20241

I skimmed the sci-fi short story. What do you think is unhelpful?

BrianKApr 11 20244

Optimistic tone/utopian scene fuels the idea space colonization/expansion of humanity is a good idea.

Geoffrey MillerApr 11 20242

Counterpoints:

Humans are about as good and virtuous as we could reasonably expect from a social primate that has evolved through natural selection, sexual selection, and social selection (I've written extensively on this in my 5 books).
Human life has been getting better, consistently, for hundreds of years. See, e.g. Steven Pinker (2018) 'Enlightenment Now'.
Factory farming would be ludicrously inefficient for the first several decades, at least, of any Moon or Mars colonies, so would simply not happen.

My more general worry is that this kind of narrative that 'humans are horrible, we mustn't colonize space and spread our horribleness elsewhere' is that it feeds the 'effective accelerationist' (e/acc) cult that thinks we'd be better replaced by AIs.

BrianKApr 11 20243

Thanks for your comment.

I don’t think this is a compelling argument. Being less immoral than the worst doesn’t lead me to conclude we should increase the immorality further. I do think it should lead us to have compassion in so far as humanity makes it very difficult not to be immoral — it’s an evolutionary problem.
That’s true! But still very bad for many. And of course, I’m concerned about all sentient beings, not just humans — the math looks truly horrible when non-humans are in concluded. I do credit humans for unintentionally reducing wild animal suffering by being so drawn to destroying the planet, but I expect the opposite will happen in space colonization situations (i.e. we will see wildlife or create more digital minds, etc.)
I’m a longtermist in this sense. I’m concerned about us torturing non-humans not just in the next several decades, but eons after. This could look like factory farming animals, seeding wild animals, creating digital minds, bringing pets with us, and so on.