The best evidence available is that it won't have any important downside for people or much impact on ecosystems. It isn't just theoretical, certain species of disease-vector mosquitoes have in fact been eradicated from certain regions in the past, to no apparent major negative impact on nature, and with a substantial positive benefit to people. See, e.g., Janet Fong's news feature in Nature, "Ecology: A world without mosquitoes" (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/466432a
I would like to hear Bryan’s response to the Three Body Problem analogy and “if the world is weird, then you should expect your morals to be weird.” “Weird” I think means “different from the ancestral environment.” While our ancestors knew there were thousands or millions of insects, they had neither the ability nor evolutionary pressure to help them, so they didn’t develop empathy for the tiny things. Why isn’t this reason to care more about insects?
My admiration for a thinker has never survived watching them debate bug welfare. Why does every one of these conversations end up sounding like dumb teenagers debating silly topics?
“Well even if you think that there's a one percent chance that they're conscious and conditional on them being conscious there's a one percent chance that they're one percent as conscious as we are and just like there are so many of them that it just looks like the worst thing in the world”… speculation about a 1% chance that they’re 1% as conscious then we should conclude X… it’s all so absurd and worthless
Consciousness may be very recent in humans, if we believe Julian Jaynes. So, the whole not debate may be moot if it turned out that insects feel no pain.
What a bizarre stance. For one, if it was technically feasible to extinct mosquitos, we should do that.
And is it quite definite that this extinction won't have any downside for people?
they kill 700k ppl/yr.
The best evidence available is that it won't have any important downside for people or much impact on ecosystems. It isn't just theoretical, certain species of disease-vector mosquitoes have in fact been eradicated from certain regions in the past, to no apparent major negative impact on nature, and with a substantial positive benefit to people. See, e.g., Janet Fong's news feature in Nature, "Ecology: A world without mosquitoes" (2010) https://doi.org/10.1038/466432a
I would like to hear Bryan’s response to the Three Body Problem analogy and “if the world is weird, then you should expect your morals to be weird.” “Weird” I think means “different from the ancestral environment.” While our ancestors knew there were thousands or millions of insects, they had neither the ability nor evolutionary pressure to help them, so they didn’t develop empathy for the tiny things. Why isn’t this reason to care more about insects?
My admiration for a thinker has never survived watching them debate bug welfare. Why does every one of these conversations end up sounding like dumb teenagers debating silly topics?
“Well even if you think that there's a one percent chance that they're conscious and conditional on them being conscious there's a one percent chance that they're one percent as conscious as we are and just like there are so many of them that it just looks like the worst thing in the world”… speculation about a 1% chance that they’re 1% as conscious then we should conclude X… it’s all so absurd and worthless
Consciousness may be very recent in humans, if we believe Julian Jaynes. So, the whole not debate may be moot if it turned out that insects feel no pain.