Could a focus on reducing suffering flatten the interpretation of life into a simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature? I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF p.213).
I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative.
Could a focus on reducing suffering, risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into a simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature?
What would change, if wild nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services nature provides to humans?
As the EA movement is getting more influential, it has a bigger responsibility to check its assumptions. EA, in its intellectual insularity, could deliver misleading messages, causing accidental harm. One example:
Many in EA see nature as net negative. The existence of wild animals is assumed as probably net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF page 213), and most assume plants, mushrooms, and bacteria are not really relevant because they would not be sentient and therefore can not suffer.
The counterintuitive conclusion that nature plausibly is negative might be a sign that the way the movement looks at the world does not reflect the complexity of nature, and it might lead to anthropocentric consequences, both theoretical and practical.
Could the EA focus on reducing suffering risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into the simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy?
What would change, if nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services (like carbon storage) nature provides to humans?
You could ask him about the most concerning tipping points. He wrote: "some models suggest that if CO2 concentrations pass 1,200ppm (compared to 415ppm today), cloud feedbacks could cause 8ºC of additional warming over the course of years to decades, on top of the 5ºC we would already have experienced." Carbon Brief covered this topic: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming/
Could a focus on reducing suffering flatten the interpretation of life into a simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature? I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF p.213).
I find it counterintuitive to assume, that wild nature plausibly is net negative.
Could a focus on reducing suffering, risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into a simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy that does not reflect the complexity of nature?
What would change, if wild nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services nature provides to humans?
As the EA movement is getting more influential, it has a bigger responsibility to check its assumptions. EA, in its intellectual insularity, could deliver misleading messages, causing accidental harm. One example:
Many in EA see nature as net negative. The existence of wild animals is assumed as probably net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF page 213), and most assume plants, mushrooms, and bacteria are not really relevant because they would not be sentient and therefore can not suffer.
The counterintuitive conclusion that nature plausibly is negative might be a sign that the way the movement looks at the world does not reflect the complexity of nature, and it might lead to anthropocentric consequences, both theoretical and practical.
Could the EA focus on reducing suffering risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into the simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy?
What would change, if nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services (like carbon storage) nature provides to humans?
You could ask him about the most concerning tipping points. He wrote: "some models suggest that if CO2 concentrations pass 1,200ppm (compared to 415ppm today), cloud feedbacks could cause 8ºC of additional warming over the course of years to decades, on top of the 5ºC we would already have experienced." Carbon Brief covered this topic: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming/