Hide table of contents

Summary

What We Owe the Future discusses reducing wild animal habitats and populations, but the idea of editing wild animals to reduce suffering is underexplored.

A grand unified theory of effective altruism

What We Owe the Future is a great step forward, but it is also a small step back, in that its vision focuses on what happens to people.

Future people count. There could be a lot of them. We can make their lives go better.

One suggested improvement from @sentientism:

Future *sentients* count. There could be a lot of them. We can make their lives better.

To do good better, altruism should not be restricted by arbitrary criteria like location (Famine, Affluence, and Morality), species (Animal Liberation) and time (What We Owe the Future). In short: everywhere, everyone, everytime.

This ties in nicely with the focus areas of effective altruism:

  • Location: Global health and development
  • Species: Animal welfare
  • Time: Reducing risks to the future
  • All of the above: Meta effective altruism

A controversial conclusion

On wild animal welfare, a brief section in Chapter 9 of What We Owe the Future is drawing attention for its conclusion.

On balance, various studies suggest that human activity over the last forty years has probably decreased vertebrate and invertebrate populations, though the evidence is limited and somewhat conflicting. How you evaluate this depends on your view on wild animal wellbeing. It’s very natural and intuitive to think of humans’ impact on wild animal life as a great moral loss. But if we assess the lives of wild animals as being worse than nothing on average, which I think is plausible (though uncertain), then we arrive at the dizzying conclusion that from the perspective of the wild animals themselves, the enormous growth and expansion of Homo sapiens has been a good thing.

MacAskill does emphasise the uncertainty of whether wild animal wellbeing is positive or negative, both in the book and in interviews.

I think it is true that you’re dealing with an environment that we don’t fully understand. From the wild animal suffering perspective, it may be very pro-more-research, more thinking about this. I’d be pretty wary of just paving over the jungle because, on the basis of our very non-robust evaluation, we think that animal lives are, on average, negative.

William MacAskill on Effective Altruism, Moral Progress, and Cultural Innovation (Ep. 156), Conversations with Tyler

The idea has been discussed before in effective altruism. In 2016, Brian Tomasik explored the idea of encouraging the loss of wild habitats to reduce suffering.

Given that most wild animals that are born have net-negative experiences, loss of wildlife habitat should in general be encouraged rather than opposed.

With the successful launch of What We Owe the Future, the idea of reducing wild animal habitats and populations is receiving renewed mainstream attention.

One problem with this idea is it could just as easily apply to humans as it does to non-human animals. If a town, region or country has a population with net-negative experiences, due to war, disease or disaster, does it mean we should reduce their living area or their population size? It seems better to reduce the negative experiences. For diseases, that could mean preventing and treating the disease, and alleviating the pain and suffering caused by the disease.

The problem with wild animals is they don’t see the veterinarian, or pop down to the local pharmacy, to treat diseases or alleviate suffering. They suffer alone, without help.

The case for CRISPR

An alternative to reducing wild animal habitats and populations is changing them so they suffer less. Analgesia through gene editing, as opposed to analgesia through drugs.

Removing r-strategists’ capacity to suffer without removing their capacity to feel mere pain is similar to giving them a permanent pain killer. It promises to significantly reduce the unpleasantness of their lives without making them less well-adapted to their environment.

Kyle Johannsen, Chapter 5 - Editing Nature, Wild Animal Ethics

The gene drive is a potential way of editing the genomes of wild animal populations.

Combining CRISPR genome editing with the natural phenomenon of gene drive allows us to rewrite the genomes of wild organisms. The benefits of saving children from malaria by editing mosquitoes are obvious and much discussed, but humans aren’t the only creatures who suffer. If we gain the power to intervene in a natural world “red in tooth and claw,” yet decline to use it, are we morally responsible for the animal suffering that we could have prevented?

Kevin Esvelt, When Are We Obligated To Edit Wild Creatures?

Like saving the drowning child in Singer’s thought experiment, now that gene drive technology is available, there is a choice between doing nothing and intervening to do good.

In the post-CRISPR era, whether intelligent agents decide to preserve, reform, or phase out the biology of involuntary suffering will be an ethical choice.

David Pearce, Compassionate Biology

The concept of editing animals, including ourselves, to reduce suffering needs a book of its own. There are many issues: obtaining informed consent, ensuring safety and control, designing constrained and reversible technologies, and regulating dual use.

But the potential of the technology to increase wellbeing deserves more exploration, in MacAskill’s new book and in others.

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

For those unfamiliar: this is the idea behind David Pearce's "ambitious, implausible, but technically feasible" manifesto The Hedonistic Imperative.

Thanks, I completely agree. David Pearce is the founder of this line of thought: editing and rewriting nature to reduce and eliminate involuntary suffering.

I have added a quotation to the post:

Like saving the drowning child in Singer’s thought experiment, now that gene drive technology is available, there is a choice between doing nothing and intervening to do good.

"In the post-CRISPR era, whether intelligent agents decide to preserve, reform, or phase out the biology of involuntary suffering will be an ethical choice."

David Pearce, Compassionate Biology

Theirs an estimated 7.7 million animal species, I think practically any sort of mass redesign of the worlds biosphere to be utopian would have to involve lots of animal extinctions unless you are suggesting genetically modifying nearly 8 million species

Thanks for the comment.

It would focus on species that have the capacity for suffering and enjoyment, so not all species.

I agree it is a hugely ambitious project. Megaprojects are within the scope of EA and its funders.

If most wild animal lives have negative wellbeing, I think this kind of intervention would be preferable to the status quo or extinction.

Theirs less than 10,000 known sponge species and only 3 known placazoa species, all remaining animal species have some form of nervous system. based on known species, the vast majority of those are arthropods, which have central nervous systems.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
In my past year as a grantmaker in the global health and wellbeing (GHW) meta space at Open Philanthropy, I've identified some exciting ideas that could fill existing gaps. While these initiatives have significant potential, they require more active development and support to move forward.  The ideas I think could have the highest impact are:  1. Government placements/secondments in key GHW areas (e.g. international development), and 2. Expanded (ultra) high-net-worth ([U]HNW) advising Each of these ideas needs a very specific type of leadership and/or structure. More accessible options I’m excited about — particularly for students or recent graduates — could involve virtual GHW courses or action-focused student groups.  I can’t commit to supporting any particular project based on these ideas ahead of time, because the likelihood of success would heavily depend on details (including the people leading the project). Still, I thought it would be helpful to articulate a few of the ideas I’ve been considering.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on these ideas and any other gaps you see in the space! Introduction I’m Mel, a Senior Program Associate at Open Philanthropy, where I lead grantmaking for the Effective Giving and Careers program[1] (you can read more about the program and our current strategy here). Throughout my time in this role, I’ve encountered great ideas, but have also noticed gaps in the space. This post shares a list of projects I’d like to see pursued, and would potentially want to support. These ideas are drawn from existing efforts in other areas (e.g., projects supported by our GCRCB team), suggestions from conversations and materials I’ve engaged with, and my general intuition. They aren’t meant to be a definitive roadmap, but rather a starting point for discussion. At the moment, I don’t have capacity to more actively explore these ideas and find the right founders for related projects. That may change, but for now, I’m interested in