Biodiversity isn't ultimately what matters but unfortunately it's the best proxy that we have for learning about the distant past.  There aren't really studies about past NPP after mass extinctions.  More diverse ecosystems tend to be richer and more productive. 

Also, humans have, in fact, been drastically reducing insect populations--https://reducing-suffering.org/humanitys-net-impact-on-wild-animal-suffering/

Why does being cage free need more feed?

Why do cage free reforms increase crop land? 

:)

Thanks, you too!

1. I'm doubtful that any of those are conscious, but I agree that given that it's possible they are, their interests matter a decent amount in expectation--though probably less than insects.  
2. If the world is very weird then the right ethical view should get weird results.  For more on this see https://wonderandaporia.substack.com/p/surely-were-not-moral-monsters and https://benthams.substack.com/p/lyman-stone-continues-being-dumb?utm_source=publication-search starting at "Lyman's a pro-natalist".  A view shouldn't be judged by matching intuitions about the actual world if those intuitions were formed unreliably. 

Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn't the only thing of any importance.  In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one's answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities. 

You can also go the way more plausible route and simply be a universalist! 

Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively.  So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel.  But probably that shouldn't be the only place that they give--the Bible seems to suggest it's very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.

Yes oops, fixed that on my main blog but forgot to fix it here.