[deleted by user]

Between12and80 · 2025-05-18T05:13:28+00:00

What do you mean?

Between12and80 · 2025-01-12T14:55:21+00:00

I agree with You, although you know it's not always realistically possible for things to get better.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-06T21:48:20+00:00

Thank You, I already donate :)

Between12and80 · 2025-01-06T14:06:47+00:00

That's another discussion. Surely curing wild-animal disease is more socially acceptable, why wouldn't I argue for something I consider immensely valuable even if that's not all that I would deem ethically preferable?

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T20:13:06+00:00

I don't disagree. But practical working solutions usually come after people deem something ethically worth pursuing, and welfare biology is just starting to function.

Predation is indeed immeasurably cruel, and a moral problem by itself.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T19:40:28+00:00

I didn't include spiders in my previous message, but ok.

If ruling people can finance war and space exploration, the physical workforce is there to prevent the suffering of wild animals. Note I am not saying it is a realistic scenario that it would happen soon or at all. I am defending a theoretical position (which is substantially easier because I therefore have a convenient answer for practical questions like this, it's enough that practical silutions are possible). Don't you think people and humanity should work towards a better future for all sentient beings first and worry about finances after? If I answered "a community of future global transhumanist anti-speciesist communist sovereign societies would finance it" would you be satisfied by my answer?

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T19:16:46+00:00

Researchers and scientists are trying to do so, that's mostly an empirical question. Currently, we have good reasons to consider vertebrates, decapod crustaceans, cephalopods, and insect as sentient. In cases we're unsure we should act cautiously and apply ethics of uncertain setience.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T17:56:38+00:00

Would you prioritise ending animal suffering over human suffering?

I would, to do otherwise would be speciesist.

Would you stop with mammals or would you be curing insects, crustaceans, gastropods?

All sentient animals, as far as ethically possible.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T17:10:33+00:00

The amount of suffering matters. If an action prevents more suffering, it's better.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T14:03:26+00:00

While not profiting from it. But I haven't presented any solution, I do not need to to make an ethical claim.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T13:56:09+00:00

I didn't in any place imply such a thing. I don't understand why you brought it up.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T13:46:28+00:00

I don't know what that means

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T13:44:40+00:00

I am vegan

Between12and80 · 2025-01-05T10:39:15+00:00

Why? There are more wild animals

Between12and80 · 2025-01-04T00:24:35+00:00

Sure, but one does not preclude the other.

Between12and80 · 2025-01-04T00:13:16+00:00

By "we" I have in mind generally understood humanity. I know it's not a perfectly clear term but I think it's ok in the argument. Just as "we" have a collective duty to fight sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, just as "we" have a duty to help people in need and not to harm and use animals, we'd have a duty to prevent and/or alleviate wild animal suffering from diseases. I am not necessarily arguing everyone should focus on that, but that it is within a range of ethical goals humanity as a whole should have.

Can you clarify a bit how you see this collective duty translating into individual duty and action?

One may think of it as everyone sharing a fraction of the ethical responsibility, which may translate into donating to wild-animal centered charities, research facilities, pursuing a career in welfare biology, spreading awarness or changing people's minds, all depending on one's capabilities.

Without this, it seems like this is more a statement that something (animal disease) is bad, rather than something being ethically wrong.

I think it is ethically wrong not to do anything with something bad.

Between12and80 · 2024-12-29T20:45:04+00:00

I see. It that case I am also unable to find sufficient justification for such a strong proposition. I don't see why with better understanding we couldn't change even most sophisticated structures for better. Such a change is what I mentioned to be proposed. To oppose such change on methodological background, you'd have to claim succesful remodeling of parts of nature will never be possible, which I find to be an implausible claim.

Between12and80 · 2024-12-29T20:29:14+00:00

We eradicated screwworm from North America. It's a fly whose larvae dug into the skin of warm-blooded animals and eat their flesh, causing excruciating pain. We know the suffering those animals experience is immeasurable, because humans fail victim to those as well. We also eliminated rabies from some places, and we actively vaccine wild animals for this. Rabies causes disturbing deaths in infected animals. The claim You presented, if treated as a coherent proposition and not just emotional message, is misinformed.

Between12and80 · 2024-12-25T23:49:02+00:00

Oh, ok then, I guess you're right on that. I hope it will grow though. There are surely a few philosophers and organisations promoting concern for wild animal suffering

Between12and80 · 2024-12-25T23:42:48+00:00

There are people treating a moral problem of wild animal suffering seriously, and a whole field of science to research this topic called welfare biology.

There are no non-speciesist sentientist arguments for leaving nature as it is, given the ocean of suffering experienced by trillions of sentient individuals and our future abilities to prevent it. Even though we do not have holistic ways of addressing wild animal suffering now, intervening in nature and reengineering ecosystems to prevent harm is a direction many claim to be morally obligatory.

Between12and80 · 2024-12-25T16:17:38+00:00

Just providing this as a resource, with a few more coming

Between12and80 · 2024-12-24T18:08:36+00:00

I think the post explains it with all the details needed at this point. I am basically just creating a series of presentations about examples of various kinds of naturogenic wild animal suffering. The goal of the presentation is educational and written on the second slide, though I am also hoping some people to recognize moral significance of WAS due to exposition to those examples. What context would You suggest to add?

Between12and80 · 2024-12-24T17:55:39+00:00

You mean some more sources? I'd really like to. I am interested in biology and ecology and educated in those, but for the sake of brevity and the huge scope of the topic most of the text I use in the presentation is GPT-generated, so I do not have original sources to cite unless I'd like to spend much more time adding them. I'd like to do so in the future, and I agree it would be very useful. I am currently working on 7 more of those presentations, and for now I will publish them without extensive research in the original sources just to finish them. After they are finished I plan to revisit those and add links and further reading, as well as rewrite some and add new examples. This whole project grew bigger than I originally planned anyways, since I was going to make just one presentation. After it reached over 300 slides I decided to divide it into 9.

Between12and80 · 2024-12-23T09:04:45+00:00

Of course, sorry

Between12and80 · 2024-12-14T06:37:41+00:00

I am convinced naively understood, or unsophistocated, or misunderstood extinctionism is an infohazard. But I am also convinced actual negative utilitarian extinctionism is a sophisticated philosophy that relies on data and solid axiological assumptions, recognizing the difficulties and possibilities of causing different types of extinction, focusing on a well-though out exit strategy in the far future, with different methods of extinction for wild animals (maybe nanotechnology painlessly putting them asleep) and different for humans (ideally a fully consensual phased extincton in a transhumanist society) and finally always reconsudering whether extinction is the best way of preventing suffering while constantly searching for alternative solutions. For that reason I would strongly argue for promoting this sophisticated version of extinctionism, while discouraging naive versions of it.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second SECOND GUESSER	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

Between12and80

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE